[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 09:16 EST --- Okay. --- This package (idioskopos) is APPROVED by me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 08:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) But, the specs are built by autoconf when configure is run. It seems not. - checking for tr1/boost_shared_ptr.h... yes checking tr1/array usability... yes checking tr1/array presence... yes checking for tr1/array... yes checking for i686-redhat-linux-gnu-pkg-config... no checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for PROJECT... yes ./configure: line 22376: suse-10.1/idioskopos.spec.in: No such file or directory configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating fedora-5/idioskopos.spec config.status: creating fedora-6/idioskopos.spec config.status: creating idioskopos-1.0.pc config.status: creating docs/www/site.php config.status: creating Makefile config.status: creating idioskopos/Makefile config.status: creating examples/Makefile - and ... suse-10.1/idioskopos.spec.in is never used. Actually I successfully rebuild this packge without m4 by mockbuild. Anyway, if running configure requires autoconf, it is not correct and should be fixed if so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Alias: idioskopos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 20:37 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
But, the specs are built by autoconf when configure is run.
Sorry about that. I meant to say, the specs are built by m4 when configure is
run.
This is the section in configure that requires m4:
#
# build spec.in files
#
for distro in fedora-5 FEDORA 5 fedora-6 FEDORA 6; do
original_params=($@)
set -- $distro
mkdir ${1}
m4 -D DISTRO=${2} \
-D DISTRO_LIB_GROUP=${2}_${3}_LIB_GROUP \
-D DISTRO_BUILD_REQUIRES=${2}_${3}_BUILD_REQUIRES \
-D DISTRO_DEVEL_GROUP=${2}_${3}_DEVEL_GROUP \
-D DISTRO_DEVEL_REQUIRES=${2}_${3}_DEVEL_REQUIRES \
spec.m4 ${1}/${PACKAGE_NAME}.spec.in
set -- $original_params
done
And then, later on in configure.in I have the spec.in that was built above in
AC_OUTPUT().
./configure: line 22376: suse-10.1/idioskopos.spec.in: No such file or
directory
I thought I removed the suse-10.1 directories for the 0.3.3 release, but I must
have done it after I pushed the release. That's the m4 command failing because
the 0.3.3 release didn't have the 'mkdir ${1}'.
Actually I successfully rebuild this packge without m4
by mockbuild.
Now that I think about it, the m4 command will probably silently fail without m4
installed. I don't have a problem removing the m4 build-requires. I just want to
make sure it's right.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-03 12:57 EST --- This is true for people who have to create spec file from spec.m4, however, srpm should include spec file (not spec.m4) and there is no need to create spec file again from spec.m4. So m4 should not needed for this reason. But, the specs are built by autoconf when configure is run. I know it's not the best, but I just haven't had time to modify configure.in to take an option of whether to build the specs or not. Right now, they're always built when configure is run. By the way I cannot rebuild 0.3.2-1 by mockbuild under FC-devel i386. Please check the build log attached. Looks like it was an overload issue with size_t and unsigned int on i386. It's fixed in the 0.3.3 release. Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/idioskopos.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/idioskopos-0.3.3-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Alias: idioskopos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-01 09:35 EST ---
Well, first review for this:
A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* Licensing
- Well, /usr/lib/pkgconfig/idioskopos-1.0.pc reads:
--
## This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify ##
## it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as ##
## published by the Free Software Foundation version 2.1 ##
--
So this package is licensed under GPL, not LGPL because
GPL is more strict than LGPL...
* BuildRequires:
- Is m4 required? Mockbuild succeeds without m4 and rpmdiff
shows no difference.
* Timestamps
- Well, -devel package contains a lot of header files so
keeping timestamps is highly preferable as
* it shows if vendor (like you) have modified the original
files
* it shows when the files are created
So keep timestamps, at least for header files.
Usually,
make INSTALL=install -p install
plays the trick.
B. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
(okay.)
C. Other things I have noticed:
* Spec file description
--
%install
%{__cp} -ar docs/reference .
%doc ChangeLog reference
--
This should be okay with
-
%install
...
%doc ChangeLog docs/reference
-
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Alias: idioskopos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-01 11:34 EST ---
A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* Licensing
Got that fixed. I copied the .pc.in from another project (that I have under the
GPL), and missed changing that one.
* BuildRequires:
- Is m4 required?
Yes. My configure script needs m4 (it's used to autobuild the Fedora and SuSE
.spec files from spec.m4), and m4 isn't on the exceptions list:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FullExceptionList
* Timestamps
I hadn't even noticed that. I agree, preserving the timestamps is nice!
Changed:
%{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
To:
%{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=%{__install} -p install
C. Other things I have noticed:
Yes, that is much better.
Thanks for all your help.
A new spec and release are at:
Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/idioskopos.spec
SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/idioskopos-0.3.2-1.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-01 22:59 EST --- Created an attachment (id=142656) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=142656action=view) Mock build log of idioskopos 0.3.2-1 (In reply to comment #4) * BuildRequires: - Is m4 required? Yes. My configure script needs m4 (it's used to autobuild the Fedora and SuSE .spec files from spec.m4), and m4 isn't on the exceptions list: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FullExceptionList This is true for people who have to create spec file from spec.m4, however, srpm should include spec file (not spec.m4) and there is no need to create spec file again from spec.m4. So m4 should not needed for this reason. By the way I cannot rebuild 0.3.2-1 by mockbuild under FC-devel i386. Please check the build log attached. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||idioskopos -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-16 10:26 EST --- *** Bug 183438 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
