[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 Bug Zapper fedora-triage-l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #18 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-l...@redhat.com 2009-12-18 04:17:44 EDT --- Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #17 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-l...@redhat.com 2009-11-18 06:47:51 EDT --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-06-11 21:15:46 EDT --- Okay, so Paul's finished the review of the other package. This package is APPROVED -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #15 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-05-12 09:26:58 EDT --- What is the final status of this packages?, is going to be included in fed11?, as an update in the repos? -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #14 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-05-06 16:46:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top: # rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages %global debug_package %{nil} Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description ? top of the file. It's easiest to spot definitions of global variables when they're at the top. what is the status of this package then?, can be say it that is ready?, is going to be included into fed11, fed12?, any chance that can be rebuilded with all mono/monodevelop stack for fed10? Thanks Mauricio -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #13 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-30 11:43:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top: # rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages %global debug_package %{nil} Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description ? top of the file. It's easiest to spot definitions of global variables when they're at the top. Sorry for the delay, to bussy the last ones...Ok, here is the new review: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review4 I get the Paul answer for the mdb package, so I going to apply what to learn here...stay tune.. Thanks Toshio Mauricio -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #10 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-27 15:38:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top: # rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages %global debug_package %{nil} Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description ? Also, waiting Paul answer about take over the mdb package, as soon as I get the response I going to apply what I learn with this review to that one for your review... -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #11 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-27 15:58:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #6) monodevelop is being built on: ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha Ok yes, using the monodevelop one, please check that my ExclusiveArch is ok then, I remove the Build: noarch, that ok then? Yep, your ExclusiveArch line is fine now. Good :-) DONE, added the sed thing, don't quite sure about not make a mess with a patch. heh. You'll have to learn about diff and patch sooner or later since it's an integral part of package building but the sed line is fine for this package. yeap I know basic diff/patch commands, just that I don't want to mess my first package and the sed command seems to be more proved for now... * You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also want to add the disttag, the next release should be: Release: 2%{?dist} not sure about what to do with this, I added that and package end with fc10.rpm... Yep. %{?dist} is a macro. So when rpm builds the package on F-10, it expands Release: 2%{?dist} into: Release: 2.fc10 When you build on F-11 it expands to: Release: 2.fc11 and so on. * You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format is shown here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs Ok I add a simple one, I try to put one in more details but as soon as I write things like Add sed to the %prep section.. or stuff like taht, rpmbuild claim about thing tha he think that are sections and not take the text as just comments even if put %prep in quotations.. What happens is that macros/section headers are always expanded by rpmbuild. (Note: This happens even when the macro is commented out.) To get around that, escape the % with another %. So your changelog could look like: %changelog * Fri Apr 24 2009 Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com - 2.0 - Fix the install directory via sed in the %%prep section. ok, I apply this to the following changelog comments.. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755 * 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball. Can this be fixed in the tarball on koji?, or I have to change the permission of the tarball on the site that I put it? This would be fixed by changing the permissions before you build the package/checkin the source. I got the tarball out of your source rpm originally. Ok changed monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation mmm, not sure what to do about this, is that a good or bad thing? (probably a bad one :-) In this case, these are false positives so they can all be ignored. The reason they're false positives for this package are written in comment #6 The only other thing I notice in the updated spec is the buildroot tag. If you look here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX) Ok, updated files are: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0-2.fc10.src.rpm http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review3 By the way, my main goal is to have this also for fed10, for that all the mono and monodevelop packages for fed11 from koji have to be rebuilded for fed10, currently I made that by hand, but the idea is to let koji to do that right? As soon as I get the Paul answer I going to apply what I learn here to the mdb and other packages for your review... Thanks for your kind help Toshio Mauricio -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #12 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-27 17:01:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top: # rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages %global debug_package %{nil} Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description ? top of the file. It's easiest to spot definitions of global variables when they're at the top. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #7 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-24 11:35:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) I realized that it's a little ambiguous which of the rpmlint output you have to act on. These are the ones that are false positives for this package: monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation mmm, not sure what to do about this, is that a good or bad thing? (probably a bad one :-) -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #6 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-24 11:34:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Change the Release tag to: DONE Ah. Sorry. I should have put that in the Good section. Your encoding is fine. Great * Still need to move the %file section to just before the %changelog section DONE monodevelop is being built on: ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha You probably want to go with monodevelop's version as it is the more restricted of the two. Since ppc and ppc64 is left off of there, you want to follow the Ok yes, using the monodevelop one, please check that my ExclusiveArch is ok then, I remove the Build: noarch, that ok then? Yeah... I took a look. The package has a hand-coded configure script instead of an autoconf generated one so it has limited options. Try this for the configure line: ./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --bindir=%{_bindir} --datadir=%{_datadir} --libdir=%{_libdir} DONE And it looks like you'll also have to patch one of the make files. MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make hardcodes $(prefix)/lib/ instead of allowing libdir to override that. You can patch the file or put this sed line into your %prep section: sed -i 's!INSTALL_DIR = $(DESTDIR)$(prefix)/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!INSTALL_DIR = $(DESTDIR)%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!' MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make DONE, added the sed thing, don't quite sure about not make a mess with a patch. So it looks like you'll need to modify the file line a little. DONE, using: %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* now New things: * You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also want to add the disttag, the next release should be: Release: 2%{?dist} not sure about what to do with this, I added that and package end with fc10.rpm... I was able to build in mock with the changes mentioned here. Great, reviewd file can be found here: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review2 So rpmlint output from the packages: monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: E: no-changelogname-tag monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag * You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format is shown here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs Ok I add a simple one, I try to put one in more details but as soon as I write things like Add sed to the %prep section.. or stuff like taht, rpmbuild claim about thing tha he think that are sections and not take the text as just comments even if put %prep in quotations.. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755 * 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball. Can this be fixed in the tarball on koji?, or I have to change the permission of the tarball on the site that I put it? monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 1) DONE, tabs removed * mono packages that only contain assemblies have no ELF files but they use architecture specific directories so they cannot be noarch. Not sure what to do about this. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation * In this case upstream is not providing any documentation files Yeap no doc at the moment, so not my fault ;-) , probably because this is a really new addin. monodevelop-debugger-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package * Presently, rpm doesn't know how to pull debug information from mono assemblies. So we should be stopping the generation of debuginfo files. This will change in the future. This page has details of how to fix this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons You want to add this to your spec file: # rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages %global debug_package %{nil} Yeap, I read about that fixing other package, so I add the line to this one, DONE Thanks, Mauricio -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-24 12:48:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) monodevelop is being built on: ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha Ok yes, using the monodevelop one, please check that my ExclusiveArch is ok then, I remove the Build: noarch, that ok then? Yep, your ExclusiveArch line is fine now. DONE, added the sed thing, don't quite sure about not make a mess with a patch. heh. You'll have to learn about diff and patch sooner or later since it's an integral part of package building but the sed line is fine for this package. * You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also want to add the disttag, the next release should be: Release: 2%{?dist} not sure about what to do with this, I added that and package end with fc10.rpm... Yep. %{?dist} is a macro. So when rpm builds the package on F-10, it expands Release: 2%{?dist} into: Release: 2.fc10 When you build on F-11 it expands to: Release: 2.fc11 and so on. * You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format is shown here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs Ok I add a simple one, I try to put one in more details but as soon as I write things like Add sed to the %prep section.. or stuff like taht, rpmbuild claim about thing tha he think that are sections and not take the text as just comments even if put %prep in quotations.. What happens is that macros/section headers are always expanded by rpmbuild. (Note: This happens even when the macro is commented out.) To get around that, escape the % with another %. So your changelog could look like: %changelog * Fri Apr 24 2009 Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com - 2.0 - Fix the install directory via sed in the %%prep section. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755 * 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball. Can this be fixed in the tarball on koji?, or I have to change the permission of the tarball on the site that I put it? This would be fixed by changing the permissions before you build the package/checkin the source. I got the tarball out of your source rpm originally. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation mmm, not sure what to do about this, is that a good or bad thing? (probably a bad one :-) In this case, these are false positives so they can all be ignored. The reason they're false positives for this package are written in comment #6 The only other thing I notice in the updated spec is the buildroot tag. If you look here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX) -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #9 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-24 12:54:07 EDT --- Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top: # rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages %global debug_package %{nil} -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.bad...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #2 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-23 12:52:27 EDT --- Needswork: * Does not build in mock/koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1317154 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1317154name=build.log Looks like you need to BuildRequire: monodevelop-devel rather than monodevelop. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #3 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-23 16:56:58 EDT --- First the doubts: you say: * Package is named according to the naming Guidelines My packages don't end with .fc10.rpm , don't know how to instruct rpmbuild to use that kind of name convention. On *Needswork section you say: * All filenames are UTF-8, that is good or bad?, need to change the text encoding? Fixed: * Spec file readability - DONE * License tag should just be MIT - DONE * The Source: line needs to have the full URL to the source - DONE * The vendor: tag should not be present in Fedora specfiles. - DONE * Autoreqprov should normally not be in Fedora spec files. - DONE * BuildArch: i386 does not belong in the spec file: Here some doubts don't know if this addins are goin to compile fine in all architectures, it seems to me that it have to just x86/x86_64 for now, how do I mix the BuildArch: noarh and ExclusiveArch: x86 x86_64? * env_options isn't a macro used in Fedora - DONE * You should use %configure rather than ./configure: Problem here, using %configure I get: ind-tables -I/usr/lib/gfortran/modules' + export FFLAGS + ./configure --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info Unknown argument --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu Usage : configure [OPTION]... [--config=CONFIG] So, it seems to me that the %configure macro use something that the package script don't know, so I use again ./configure witch give now a error message: RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /home/buho/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0-1.1.i386/usr/lib/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* Witch is related to the use of: %{_libdir}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* instead of the original: %{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* * --prefix=%_prefix is included in the %configure macro so you don't need it if you use the %configure macro. - SEE PREVIOUS * In Fedora, mono libraries are installed in %{_libdir} instead of /usr/lib. On x86_64 systems, that expands to /usr/lib6 instead of /usr/lib.- SEE PREVIOUS * package needs to rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install - DONE * All filenames are UTF-8 - GOOD/BAD? * No license file is included in the tarball so you should ask upstream if they'll provide one with their next release. - ASKING * Looks like you need to BuildRequire: monodevelop-devel rather than monodevelop. - DONE Reviewed file can be found: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review1 Thanks Toshio Mauricio -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #5 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-23 20:17:46 EDT --- I realized that it's a little ambiguous which of the rpmlint output you have to act on. These are the ones that are false positives for this package: monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 --- Comment #4 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-23 20:16:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) First the doubts: you say: * Package is named according to the naming Guidelines My packages don't end with .fc10.rpm , don't know how to instruct rpmbuild to use that kind of name convention. Ah... this is optional, but it actually is a good thing to do (so upgrades between releases work). Change the Release tag to: Release: 2%{?dist} The %{dist} macro expands to fc10 on fedora 10, fc11 on Fedora 11, etc. The ? in the macro allows the rpm to build if the macro isn't defined on the system on which you're building. On *Needswork section you say: * All filenames are UTF-8, that is good or bad?, need to change the text encoding? Ah. Sorry. I should have put that in the Good section. Your encoding is fine. Fixed: * Spec file readability - DONE * Still need to move the %file section to just before the %changelog section * BuildArch: i386 does not belong in the spec file: Here some doubts don't know if this addins are goin to compile fine in all architectures, it seems to me that it have to just x86/x86_64 for now, how do I mix the BuildArch: noarh and ExclusiveArch: x86 x86_64? * You would do: ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 But what keeps the addins from compiling on other arches? mono itself is being built on: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparcv9 alpha s390 s390x ppc ppc64 monodevelop is being built on: ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha You probably want to go with monodevelop's version as it is the more restricted of the two. Since ppc and ppc64 is left off of there, you want to follow the directions here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support So that people associated with ppc and ppc64 ports can track this bug and attempt to fix it. * You should use %configure rather than ./configure: Problem here, using %configure I get: Yeah... I took a look. The package has a hand-coded configure script instead of an autoconf generated one so it has limited options. Try this for the configure line: ./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --bindir=%{_bindir} --datadir=%{_datadir} --libdir=%{_libdir} And it looks like you'll also have to patch one of the make files. MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make hardcodes $(prefix)/lib/ instead of allowing libdir to override that. You can patch the file or put this sed line into your %prep section: sed -i 's!INSTALL_DIR = $(DESTDIR)$(prefix)/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!INSTALL_DIR = $(DESTDIR)%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!' MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /home/buho/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0-1.1.i386/usr/lib/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* Witch is related to the use of: %{_libdir}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* the goal is to be able to use: %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* So it looks like you'll need to modify the file line a little. New things: * You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also want to add the disttag, the next release should be: Release: 2%{?dist} I was able to build in mock with the changes mentioned here. So rpmlint output from the packages: monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: E: no-changelogname-tag monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag * You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format is shown here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755 * 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 1) * Converting all tabs in the specfile into spaces would be a good idea. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib * mono packages that only contain assemblies have no ELF files but they use architecture specific directories so they cannot be noarch. monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation * In this case upstream is not providing any documentation files monodevelop-debugger-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package * Presently, rpm doesn't know how to pull debug information from mono assemblies. So we should be stopping the generation of debuginfo files. This will change in the future. This page has details of how to fix this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons You want to add this to your
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-22 16:55:47 EDT --- A few links to packaging guidelines: List of important guideline points that all packages are reviewed for: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Main Guidelines page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Guidelines for packaging mono packages in Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono Review: Good: * Package is named according to the naming Guidelines * Spec file name matches the package name * License of the software is MIT * Source matches the upstream tarball * No locales * No shared libraries * No Prefix specified * No duplicate files or directories * Proper %clean section * Package is code, not content * No documentation, so no %doc subpackage * Not a standalone GUI app so no .desktop Needswork: * Spec file readability -- In Fedora the sections are usually in a different order. Having them be in a standard order doesn't help the package build but it does help other people reviewing the spec or who work on it later. There's many simple spec files in cvs to look at. For instance: - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/monodoc/devel/monodoc.spec * License tag should just be MIT - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names * The Source: line needs to have the full URL to the source - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL * The vendor: tag should not be present in Fedora specfiles. It will be automatically files in by the buildsystem. * Autoreqprov should normally not be in Fedora spec files. It is on by defaul. * BuildArch: i386 does not belong in the spec file. In Fedora we really only use BuildArch: noarch which specifies that the package can be built on any architecture and will create an architecture independent package. If we need to limit the arches that the package builds on, we use ExcludeArch or ExclusiveArch * env_options isn't a macro used in Fedora * You should use %configure rather than ./configure unless there's a reason. * --prefix=%_prefix is included in the %configure macro so you don't need it if you use the %configure macro. * In Fedora, mono libraries are installed in %{_libdir} instead of /usr/lib. On x86_64 systems, that expands to /usr/lib6 instead of /usr/lib. So use this in the %files section: %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll* * package needs to rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install * All filenames are UTF-8 * No license file is included in the tarball so you should ask upstream if they'll provide one with their next release. Trying a build in mock now. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
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=496633 Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |10 -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review