Re: Multiple identical udev rules -- safe?
Am 31.01.2011 22:47, schrieb Martin Langhoff:
Consider this file from nxt_python package:
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-lego.rules
BUS==usb, SYSFS{idVendor}==0694, GROUP=lego, MODE=0660
Is it safe sane to include an identical udev rule file in the nbc
package with different filename? To state the obvious -- it'd use the
same group name and mode.
Fallback plan is to prep a package just for this udev rule and depend
on it, but it seems unnecesary overhead.
m
Yes, it would be safe. It's just code duplication.
Why does it use group lego? Is there a daemon running?
Or should the console user have access to it?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Multiple identical udev rules -- safe?
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 11:04 +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Am 31.01.2011 22:47, schrieb Martin Langhoff:
Consider this file from nxt_python package:
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-lego.rules
BUS==usb, SYSFS{idVendor}==0694, GROUP=lego, MODE=0660
Is it safe sane to include an identical udev rule file in the nbc
package with different filename? To state the obvious -- it'd use the
same group name and mode.
Fallback plan is to prep a package just for this udev rule and depend
on it, but it seems unnecesary overhead.
m
Yes, it would be safe. It's just code duplication.
Why does it use group lego? Is there a daemon running?
Or should the console user have access to it?
FWIW, I'd really like to see the console user have access to this by
default. Then, uploading a file to the NXT brick would be plug and
play.
Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
package for Fedora and EPEL from one spec source?
Hi,
I've submitted my first Fedora package for review and sponsoring recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the two are
minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
commented out in the default config.
What is the best way to handle this? Can I keep one spec for both and use
conditionals to always build the right way?
I've seen code like %if 0%{?rhel} somewhere on the net, but that didn't work
for me. I guess the %rhel-macro should be defined in /etc/rpm/macros.dist
where I usually find stuff like %fedora but that doesn't exist on my Centos 5.
Or am I supposed to create a completely separate .spec for EPEL once the
review, sponsoring etc. for Fedora is done?
Kind regards,
Gerd
--
Address (better: trap) for people I really don't want to get mail from:
jo...@cactusamerica.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: package for Fedora and EPEL from one spec source?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Gerd v. Egidy li...@egidy.de wrote:
Hi,
I've submitted my first Fedora package for review and sponsoring recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the two
are
minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
commented out in the default config.
This page
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag
and the buildsys macros RPM on EPEL5 should help you.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/x86_64/
yes is perfectly possible to have one .spec file for all at the start though
they may diverge due to difference update policies in particular.
Steve.
What is the best way to handle this? Can I keep one spec for both and use
conditionals to always build the right way?
I've seen code like %if 0%{?rhel} somewhere on the net, but that didn't
work
for me. I guess the %rhel-macro should be defined in /etc/rpm/macros.dist
where I usually find stuff like %fedora but that doesn't exist on my Centos
5.
Or am I supposed to create a completely separate .spec for EPEL once the
review, sponsoring etc. for Fedora is done?
Kind regards,
Gerd
--
Address (better: trap) for people I really don't want to get mail from:
jo...@cactusamerica.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Steve Traylen
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: package for Fedora and EPEL from one spec source?
GvE == Gerd v Egidy li...@egidy.de writes: GvE What is the best way to handle this? Can I keep one spec for both GvE and use conditionals to always build the right way? You can. Do keep in mind, however, that the amount of conditional garbage you have to pile into the spec file can get to be a bit much, and it is often much simpler to just have a different spec on el5. These days modern Fedora packaging has diverged quite significantly from what can be supported on el5. - J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: package for Fedora and EPEL from one spec source?
Hi Steve,
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the
two are
minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
commented out in the default config.
This page
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag
and the buildsys macros RPM on EPEL5 should help you.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/x86_64/
Thanks for the pointers. Installing the buildsys-macros did it.
How can I make sure that buildsys-macros is installed?
BuildRequires: buildsys-macros
won't work because there is no buildsys-macros on Fedora. And
%if 0%{?rhel}
BuildRequires: buildsys-macros
%endif
is not going to work too...
BTW, why must buildsys-macros be downloaded manually from the above URL and is
not included in the regular EPEL repository?
Kind regards,
Gerd
--
Address (better: trap) for people I really don't want to get mail from:
jo...@cactusamerica.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: NetworkManager doesn't start on boot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/31/2011 04:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote: There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting (I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine). I would assume its the same error? On 31 January 2011 07:22, Braden McDaniel bra...@endoframe.com mailto:bra...@endoframe.com wrote: I've recently set up a virtual machine running rawhide and I've noticed that NetworkManager never seems to start on boot; I must always start it manually. As far as I can tell, it is configured to start on boot. Is there something about the virtual machine context that would trigger this? -- Braden McDaniel bra...@endoframe.com mailto:bra...@endoframe.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Could you attach the AVC? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1IMdQACgkQrlYvE4MpobMJKACfcN3xMOrlUTablIoGgdGIyjGa fC8AnjmSLBzqT8SwEX3XJMDM/EFFxVPM =Twyw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[389-devel] Please review: Bug 667935 - DS pipe log script's logregex.py plugin is not redirecting the log output to the text file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667935 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476412action=diff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476412action=edit -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Re: package for Fedora and EPEL from one spec source?
Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
I've seen code like %if 0%{?rhel} somewhere on the net, but that didn't
work for me. I guess the %rhel-macro should be defined in
/etc/rpm/macros.dist where I usually find stuff like %fedora but that
doesn't exist on my Centos 5.
%{rhel} is defined in the EPEL build system. If you want to use it in local
builds, you have to use the EPEL mock configs (which also define this) or
define it yourself (but normally you're supposed to use mock for builds, not
rpmbuild directly).
Alternatively, you can use if !0%{?fedora} instead. Fedora always defines
%{fedora}.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: package for Fedora and EPEL from one spec source?
On 02/01/2011 09:27 AM, Gerd v. Egidy wrote: How can I make sure that buildsys-macros is installed? BuildRequires: buildsys-macros won't work because there is no buildsys-macros on Fedora. And You don't need to do that as buildsys-macros is part of the buildroot in koji for EPEL5. $ koji list-groups dist-5E-build build [snip] buildsys-macros: None, default [dist-5E-build] [snip] BTW, why must buildsys-macros be downloaded manually from the above URL and is not included in the regular EPEL repository? I don't know why, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have it in the repository like a normal package, IMO. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: package for Fedora and EPEL from one spec source?
MC == Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com writes: MC I don't know why, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have it in the MC repository like a normal package, IMO. Not that this will really explain anything, but: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563176 - J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-02-02)
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (12:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = #topic #516 Updates policy adjustments/changes .fesco 516 #topic #515 Investigate a features repo for stable releases .fesco 515 #topic #517 Updates Metrics .fesco 517 = New Business = #topic #518 Abrt .fesco 518 #topic #544 List of services that may start by default .fesco 544 #topic #550 F15Feature: Indic Typing Booster - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IndicTypingBooster .fesco 550 = Fedora Engineering Services tickets = https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-engineering-services/report/6 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Multiple identical udev rules -- safe?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com wrote: FWIW, I'd really like to see the console user have access to this by default. Then, uploading a file to the NXT brick would be plug and play. Yeah. Trouble is - I know nothing about ConsoleKit policy. What's the trick to change this udev rule into something that works with CK? m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Abandoned packages (mediawiki-openid and php-pear-Auth-OpenID-2.1.1)
I'll approve it as a fesco member. ;) Just ping me in 3 days and we can add you to the package. Sorry got caught up with some other stuff, pinging you as requested. (trying to get these openid packages to work with yahoo, it's apparently broken =(. -Kurt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: NetworkManager doesn't start on boot
On 1/31/11 4:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote: There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting (I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine). I would assume its the same error? So far, I have not identified an SELinux denial that appears to be associated with this. But I'll keep looking. Braden -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: NetworkManager doesn't start on boot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/01/2011 05:05 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote: On 1/31/11 4:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote: There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting (I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine). I would assume its the same error? So far, I have not identified an SELinux denial that appears to be associated with this. But I'll keep looking. Braden ausearch -m avc -ts today Does it work in permissive mode? If not then why do you think this is an SELinux issue? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1IkSIACgkQrlYvE4MpobM4dgCfUm1qPIf0eO/7TicnZDkNizeO e+MAoL+m56WYtGcAJAT1b25kbSD5zgMr =qZ+4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: NetworkManager doesn't start on boot
Agreed with others, I can't see Network Manager having issue with SELinux. Can you post SELinux reporting details? -- Chris Jones PHOTO RESOLUTIONS - Photo - Graphic - Web C and L Jones - Proprietors ABN: 98 317 740 240 WWW: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com @: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au or photoresoluti...@comcen.com.au -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 674259] New: perl-Inline-Files-0.64 is available
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: perl-Inline-Files-0.64 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674259 Summary: perl-Inline-Files-0.64 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: perl-Inline-Files AssignedTo: mmasl...@redhat.com ReportedBy: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-l...@redhat.com, mmasl...@redhat.com Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.64 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.63 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Inline-Files/ Please consult the package update guidelines before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 674259] perl-Inline-Files-0.64 is available
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674259 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|mmasl...@redhat.com |ppi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|mmasl...@redhat.com |ppi...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Inline-Files-0.64.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Inline-Files: d777282872ecc642033ca01fffed8f73 Inline-Files-0.64.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Inline-Files] 0.64 bump
commit d0016ad7b8d76e3ac2ef2cd47b0107e064d3f691
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 1 10:19:08 2011 +0100
0.64 bump
And some spec file clean-ups.
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Inline-Files.spec | 29 ++---
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 17d333b..871df7b 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
Inline-Files-0.63.tar.gz
+/Inline-Files-0.64.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Inline-Files.spec b/perl-Inline-Files.spec
index 04adbc2..6534707 100644
--- a/perl-Inline-Files.spec
+++ b/perl-Inline-Files.spec
@@ -1,17 +1,14 @@
Name: perl-Inline-Files
-Version:0.63
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Version:0.64
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Allows for multiple inline files in a single perl file
-
Group: Development/Libraries
License:GPL+ or Artistic
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Inline-Files/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/A/AM/AMBS/Inline/Inline-Files-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-
BuildArch: noarch
-
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+BuildRequires: perl(Filter::Util::Call)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
@@ -19,42 +16,36 @@ Inline::Files generalizes the notion of the `__DATA__'
marker and the
associated `DATA' filehandle, to an arbitrary number of markers and
associated filehandles.
-
%prep
%setup -q -n Inline-Files-%{version}
-
-chmod -R a-x demo/* README Changes lib/Inline/Files.pm
lib/Inline/Files/Virtual.pm
-
+chmod -R a-x demo/* README Changes lib/Inline/Files.pm \
+lib/Inline/Files/Virtual.pm
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
-
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null ';'
chmod -R u+w $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
-
%check
make test
-
-%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
-
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README demo/
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
-
%changelog
+* Tue Feb 01 2011 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.64-1
+- 0.64 bump
+- Remove BuildRoot stuff and empty lines
+- Consolidate dependencies
+
* Fri Dec 17 2010 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com - 0.63-2
- 661697 rebuild for fixing problems with vendorach/lib
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index c72adf8..e58bfca 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-460ed656cb55cba677ae774319958fc2 Inline-Files-0.63.tar.gz
+d777282872ecc642033ca01fffed8f73 Inline-Files-0.64.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 674259] perl-Inline-Files-0.64 is available
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674259 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Inline-Files-0.64-1.fc ||15 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-02-01 04:49:17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Broken dependencies: perl-RPM2
perl-RPM2 has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-RPM2-0.68-9.fc15.x86_64 requires librpmio.so.1()(64bit) perl-RPM2-0.68-9.fc15.x86_64 requires librpm.so.1()(64bit) On i386: perl-RPM2-0.68-9.fc15.i686 requires librpm.so.1 perl-RPM2-0.68-9.fc15.i686 requires librpmio.so.1 Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Mail-MboxParser/el5/master] Upload specfile.
commit 3a393e2d8fa796988b5e123cb19ce8db16663bfa
Author: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 1 14:35:45 2011 +0100
Upload specfile.
perl-Mail-MboxParser.spec | 59 +
1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Mail-MboxParser.spec b/perl-Mail-MboxParser.spec
new file mode 100644
index 000..96575fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/perl-Mail-MboxParser.spec
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+%{!?perl_vendorlib: %define perl_vendorlib %(eval `%{__perl}
-V:installvendorlib`; echo $installvendorlib)}
+
+Name: perl-Mail-MboxParser
+Version:0.55
+Release:2%{?dist}
+Summary:Read-only access to UNIX-mailboxes
+License:GPL+ or Artistic
+Group: Development/Libraries
+URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-MboxParser/
+Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/V/VP/VPARSEVAL/Mail-MboxParser-%{version}.tar.gz
+BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+
+BuildArch: noarch
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+BuildRequires: perl(MIME::Tools) = 5
+Requires: perl(MIME::Tools) = 5
+Requires: perl(Mail::Mbox::MessageParser)
+Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+
+%description
+This module attempts to provide a simplified access to standard UNIX-
+mailboxes. It offers only a subset of methods to get 'straight to the
+point'. More sophisticated things can still be done by invoking any method
+from MIME::Tools on the appropriate return values.
+
+%prep
+%setup -q -n Mail-MboxParser-%{version}
+
+%build
+%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
+make %{?_smp_mflags}
+
+%install
+rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+
+find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
+find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
+
+%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
+
+%check
+make test
+
+%clean
+rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+
+%files
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%doc Changelog README
+%{perl_vendorlib}/*
+%{_mandir}/man3/*
+
+%changelog
+* Thu Jan 20 2011 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.55-2
+- fix typo in requires
+
+* Thu Jan 20 2011 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.55-1
+- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 671445] [PATCH] specfile accords to new packaging guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-02-01 10:04:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Created attachment 475924 [details] incremental support for older RHEL releases I liked Steve's suggestion on the list: extend the existing --old option to support old and older conventions by making it cumulative. That's how my own ~/bin/cpanspec is working. I'd meant to clean it up and submit it a while back but never got around to it. The attached patch will allow cpanspec to generate specs suitable for f13+ (and el6) by default; using --old will generate specs suitable for older fedora and el4/5; using --old --old generates specs for antique distributions (as the current --old option does). Nice, your patch looks good. I've tested it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: perl @INC (paths) again
On 01/31/2011 04:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 01/31/2011 04:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Hello, because some questions and blocked reviews [1]. I feel that we really need discuss our @INC paths once again. Thanks for trying to launch such a discussion. I am blocking these reviews, because I feel redhat.cz has drawn uncommunicated, arguable and questionable decisions, which are at risk of to run down Fedora's perl. This is only proposal and there are also other possibilities, how to create specific directory for installation of users rpms. I'd like to change this proposal to FPC guidelines maybe for next Fedora, therefore I really like to know your opinions. I promise to read it in depth and to think about it, but I won't have much time this week. Marcela, what are we supposed to think of the fact you are continuing to accept packages which do not install into vendor_dir? I interpret these actions of yours, as you not being interested in settling the issues, but you wanting to implement facts by brute-force. This is not helpful. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 674117] yum groupinstall Perl Development fails with 01-26 rawhide
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674117 Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-perl-devel-list@redh ||at.com, ||oli...@linux-kernel.at, ||tcall...@redhat.com Component|comps |perl-Spreadsheet-WriteExcel AssignedTo|nott...@redhat.com |tcall...@redhat.com QAContact||extras...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[389-devel] Please Review: (670616) Allow SSF to be set for local (ldapi) connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670616 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476468action=edit -- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
