[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Michal Ambroz changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|GNULIB |GNULIB_REVIEW CC||re...@seznam.cz --- Comment #67 from Michal Ambroz --- remove the GNULIB alias to be able to search fo the bugs related to this package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #66 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- I'll do SOON ^_^ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #65 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #64 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Package Change Request == Package Name: gnulib New Branches: epel7 Owners: moceap zbyszek Requested in #1138377 . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc20 |gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc19 --- Comment #63 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-22 00:39:53 --- Comment #62 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #59 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #61 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #56 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Thanx Alot Zbigniew, I know how much time you spent for building package and doing this review, Thank You. 0-4.20131219git - Update. - General tweaks. - Remove META main package. - Rename -core into -devel. - Remove main package from other packages requires. - -docs requires -devel. - Move main requires to -devel ones. - -devel provides main package. - Remove un-need-to-list-BRs diffutils make coreutils patch. - United path for documents for all packages. --- Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-0-4.20131219git.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #57 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Nice! All issues noted above are fixed, and even rpmlint is almost happy.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: gnulib-docs-0-4.20131219git.fc20.noarch.rpm
gnulib-devel-0-4.20131219git.fc20.noarch.rpm
git-merge-changelog-0-4.20131219git.fc20.x86_64.rpm
gnulib-0-4.20131219git.fc20.src.rpm
gnulib-docs.noarch: E: devel-dependency gnulib-devel
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/update-copyright
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/announce-gen
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/tests/test-posix_spawn2.in.sh 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/ldd.sh.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/useless-if-before-free
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/lib/config.charset 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/x-to-1.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/javaexec.sh.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/csharpexec.sh.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/csharpcomp.sh.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/javacomp.sh.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/tests/test-posix_spawn1.in.sh 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/gnulib/tests/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/test-quotearg.mo
Those are tests and build scripts, so normal rules don't apply.
git-merge-changelog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changelogs
- change logs, change-logs, changelings
gnulib.src: W: strange-permission gnulib-0ac90c5.tar.gz 0640L
That's a bit strange, but git doesn't store permissions, so when the package is
imported this should go away.
gnulib.src:5: W: macro-in-comment %name
gnulib.src:7: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{summary_of_moduleX}
gnulib.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{license_of_moduleX}
gnulib.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %description
gnulib.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %_prefix
gnulib.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:25: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
gnulib.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
gnulib.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
gnulib.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
gnulib.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
gnulib.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:30: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
gnulib.src:30: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
gnulib.src:31: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
gnulib.src:31: W: macro-in-comment %{moduleX}
OK.
gnulib.src:149: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnulib
Ooops, I think I suggested this, and it should be
Provides: gnulib = %{version}-%{release}
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 27 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint gnulib-devel gnulib-docs git-merge-changelog
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/update-copyright
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/announce-gen
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/tests/test-posix_spawn2.in.sh 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/ldd.sh.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/useless-if-before-free
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/lib/config.charset 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/x-to-1.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gnulib/build-aux/javaexec.sh.in 0644L /bin/sh
gnulib-devel.noarch: E:
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #58 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Thank You ^_^ New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnulib Short Description: GNU Portability Library Owners: moceap zbyszek Branches: f19 f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #54 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Update: --- Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-0-3.20131201git.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #53 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- OK. All Done: -- Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-0-2.20131112git.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #46 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Just a comment on this:
SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-0.1.git20131112-1.oji.fc19.src.rpm
It looks very unusual to have git20131112 as part of the %{version}. Since
this is a snapshot from git, the following applies:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
And if the internal version really is 0.1, you need to decide on whether it's a
pre-release or post-release snapshot:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
With 0.1.git2013112 in %version, you could not upgrade to 0.1 final, for
example:
$ rpmdev-vercmp 0.1.git20131112 0.1
0.1.git20131112 0.1
With the versioning guidelines applied, the package will look like:
gnulib-0.1-0.X.20131112git.fc19.src.rpm
with X being the release number you would increase for ordinary packaging
changes (including rebuilds or newer/older snapshots).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #47 from Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #45) - After more 6 years in 0.0, GnuLib 0.1 released. - Replace version method to $ver.git$gitdate instead of $gitdate.git$githead. - Update to 0.1.git20131112. Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-0.1.git20131112-1.oji.fc19.src.rpm Gnulib v0.1 is a non-release event. It has no significance other than to reduce the count of patches since the last tag to be fewer than 1000. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2013-10/msg00118.html Upstream gnulib has no intention of making a formal release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #48 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Then
Version: 0
Release: X.MMDDgit%{?dist}
would be good enough, since 0.X at the beginning of Release would not make an
important difference.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #49 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- What about this tag? http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commit;h=233419c39c6d13d84439b95766328a238ffb6518 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #50 from Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #49) What about this tag? http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commit; h=233419c39c6d13d84439b95766328a238ffb6518 What about it? Per comment 47, it has no purpose other than to stop gnulib from having more than 999 commits since the last non-release tag. That particular commit carries no more significance upstream than any other commit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #51 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- OK, I read your first comment, but I see if the upstream taged that as 0.1, then why we defer? Building take alot of time, so what finally method for last SRPM: gnulib-0.1-0.2.20131112git.fc19.src.rpm OR gnulib-0-2.20131112git.fc19.src.rpm ??? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #52 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
If the 0.1 is not used anywhere in the code, and if it's true that it is not
some form of release version, then the 0.1 is meaningless for the Fedora RPM
package. All that matters in that case would be the %{checkout} value as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
So, gnulib-0-2.20131112git.fc19.src.rpm is the way to go.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #45 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- - After more 6 years in 0.0, GnuLib 0.1 released. - Replace version method to $ver.git$gitdate instead of $gitdate.git$githead. - Update to 0.1.git20131112. Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-0.1.git20131112-1.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #44 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Looks fine to me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #43 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- - Decrease description of git-merge-changelog - Add license file to git-merge-changelog Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131030.git5c508f6-2.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #39 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- It means: BuildArch: noarch at the top of the spec file turns all packages built by the src.rpm noarch, not only the base package. You cannot override that for individual subpackages then. Also remember, BuildArch: noarch in a subpackage is only a compromise for an otherwise arch-specific build. It doesn't affect the build of _the src.rpm_ and its single %prep, %build, %install, … sections. It doesn't protect the packager from including arch-specific builds in a noarch subpackage by accident. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #40 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Ok Michael, Thank You. Gnulib isn't arched, but if we want to build modules new subpackage must arched. So I create -core subpackage still noarched and contain gnulib, and main package still as meta package. Now it's built (takes alot of time) , after that I'll uplode it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #41 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- - Update to 20131030.git5c508f6 - Create -core noarch package, because rpmbuild can't drive arched subpackage from nonarched main one. - Some General Fixes. - Add 1st sample form - Module Sample: (Alpha Version) - Add 1st module single package - git-merge-changelog Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131030.git5c508f6-1.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #42 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Looks nice, apart from the %description, which is too long and too detailed. Maybe something like this: git-merge-changelog is a git merge driver for changelogs that combines parallel additions to the changelog without generating merge conflicts. It can be enabled for specific files by setting appropriate git attributes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #31 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com ---
ok
1. rpmlint: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnulib
How to solve ?
2. Note: Macros in: gnulib-docs (description)
Hm, this should be %{name}, not %{gnulib}. I think I added that by mistake.
Done
3. Requires:java-headless must be added because of the java class
added.
4. W: invalid-license LGPL2+
corrected.
Are you planning on providing a pre-built git-merge-changelog as a subpackage?
Eric , I think if you write important modules for built as single packages,
that's look nice.
Note new packages called ::
gnulib-%{module}
I had no idea about git-merge-changelog. Looks very useful, and I think it
should definitely be packaged in compiled form.
Zbigniew , It looks easy just must done before changing (dir) at gnulib-tool.
For git-merge-changelog just these command (from docs) :
gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=%{somedir} git-merge-changelog
cd %{somedir}
configure,make.
:)
Regards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #32 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- gnulib-tests is required for building modules, so added to Requires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #33 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com ---
First Sample :
# Module Sample:
# %package %{module}
# Summary: %{summary_of_module}
# License: %{license_of_module}
#
# %build %{module}
# gnulib-build --create-testdir --dir=%{somedir} %{module}
# cd %{somedir}
# ./configure --prefix=/usr
# make %{?_smp_mflags}
#
# %install %{module}
# make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
# help2man -N --no-discard-stderr %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{module}
%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{module}.1
#
# %files %{module}
# %{_bindir}/%{module}
# %{_mandir}/*/%{module}.*
Any ideas :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #34 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- * gnulib-build = copy of gnulib-tool before edited :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #35 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #31)
ok
1. rpmlint: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnulib
How to solve ?
C'mon, just add /usr/share/gnulib to %files.
Actually, if the gnulib requires gnulib-tests, and gnulib-tests require gnulib,
there's no point in keeping them separate, so gnulib-tests can go, and then
%files is simplified, since everything under /usr/share/gnulib is owned by the
main package.
2. Note: Macros in: gnulib-docs (description)
Hm, this should be %{name}, not %{gnulib}. I think I added that by
mistake.
Done
3. Requires:java-headless must be added because of the java class
added.
4. W: invalid-license LGPL2+
corrected.
Are you planning on providing a pre-built git-merge-changelog as a
subpackage?
Eric , I think if you write important modules for built as single packages,
that's look nice.
Sorry, I can't parse that.
Note new packages called ::
gnulib-%{module}
Why not just 'git-merge-changelog'?
I had no idea about git-merge-changelog. Looks very useful, and I think it
should definitely be packaged in compiled form.
Zbigniew , It looks easy just must done before changing (dir) at gnulib-tool.
For git-merge-changelog just these command (from docs) :
gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=%{somedir} git-merge-changelog
cd %{somedir}
configure,make.
Right.
Maybe add to %build (only partially tested):
./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=build-g-m-c git-merge-changelog
pushd build-g-m-c
%configure
make %{_smp_mflags} -C gllib git-merge-changelog
popd
Then there's the question if additional build requirements are needed. Maybe
not, since gcc is guaranteed to be present.
(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #34)
* gnulib-build = copy of gnulib-tool before edited :)
I think there's no need to copy, I think. This can be done after the part which
creates MODULES.html.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #36 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Why not just 'git-merge-changelog'? Because we working at (gnulib SRPM) We can use ( Provides ) function. Then there's the question if additional build requirements are needed. All gnulib R need to be BR to build any module package :) --- Working now, I'll upload new package after built. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #37 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #36) Why not just 'git-merge-changelog'? Because we working at (gnulib SRPM) We can use ( Provides ) function. The subpackage can be called anything we want. E.g. kernel.srpm delivers (among many other) perf.rpm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #38 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Some problem (I can't solve) Main package (gnulib) is noarch. New sub package (git-merge-changelog) arched. Now I can't build and have this message : error: line 153: Only noarch subpackages are supported: BuildArch: noarch noarch Any ideas ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #27 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Fixes after Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek revision: - Remove prebuilt java class. - gnulib-docs require gnulib. - List all licenses. - Replace define by global. Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131027.git5191b35-2.oji.fc19.src.rpm Thank You. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #28 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Oops, more issues, but they're getting incrementally smaller:
1. rpmlint: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnulib
2. Note: Macros in: gnulib-docs (description)
Hm, this should be %{name}, not %{gnulib}. I think I added that by mistake.
3. Requires:java-headless must be added because of the java class
4. W: invalid-license LGPL2+
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #29 from Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Eric Blake from comment #16) Although I personally use gnulib in lots of projects, I have never once wanted to use a distro's packaging of it. On the other hand, I would _welcome_ an independent packaging of gnulib's git-merge-changelog, rather than having to always build and locally install it myself to make use of it. Are you planning on providing a pre-built git-merge-changelog as a subpackage? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #30 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- I had no idea about git-merge-changelog. Looks very useful, and I think it should definitely be packaged in compiled form. BTW. there's another reason for packaging gnulib: building MODULES.html takes 10 min, so it's nice to be able to easily install it for offline browsing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #24 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Oops, I run fedora-review on this, and there still are issues:
1. Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
There's lib/javaversion.class, which should be recompiled from sources.
%prep
...
rm libs/javaversion.class
%build
...
javac -d lib -source 1.3 -target 1.3 lib/javaversion.java
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
I think R:java-devel is enough.
2. Actually the -docs package also needs R: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}.
It used to be independent, but I missed that MODULES.html links to files in the
base package, so it doesn't make sense to install it alone.
3. Licensing was not described properly according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines.
License: Public Domain and BSD and GPLv2+ and GPLv3 and GPLv3+ and LGPLv2 and
LGPL2+ and LGPLv3+
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #25 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- No problem, all will be fixed. * java-devel is enough * Can we write (GPL2+) instead of (GPLv2+ and GPLv3 and GPLv3+) ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- License names are taken from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List. There's only GPLvX not GPLX in that list. And GPLv2+ means GPL v2 or any later, GPLv3+ means GPL v3 or any later, so they are not additive. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #20 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Created attachment 816430 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=816430action=edit updated spec file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
=== packaging ===
I still see some minor issues:
- modules/COPYING should not be removed: it is very important because it gives
a right to use the modules almost freely.
- in a couple of places '-n %{name}-subpackage' is used, but 'subpackage'
suffices.
- MODULES.html can be packaged too.
I prepared an updated .spec file (attached) with those changes.
=== the rest ===
How does your packaging attempt compare to their attempt? What release
cadence are you planning to maintain? An out-of-date gnulib package is less
useful than just using gnulib from upstream.
That is a very good question. I think there's a place for gnulib in the
distribution, but indeed, only if it is regularly updated. Mosaab, I'd be happy
to co-maintain the package with you, to ensure that there's always somebody to
prepare the update.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #22 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Mosaab, I'd be happy to co-maintain the package with you, ME too :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #23 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Updated :: Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131027.git5191b35-1.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #18 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- I don't build this package just for it, I need this package to build : https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools Sorts Mill uses gnulib-tool at building time. Sorts Mill necessary to build Amiri Fonts : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015701 Also I don't want to show Fedora poor of any tool may we use or need some day. - So I hope to accept this Gnulib Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #18) I don't build this package just for it, I need this package to build : https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools Sorts Mill uses gnulib-tool at building time. Upstream design flaw ;) You probabably can work around this it by adding the missing files offline and to apply the generated files as a patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) It is nice to be able to use it without bundling in the sources: No. This is not the way gnulib is supposed to be used. gnulib files are supposed to be updated from git and the results to be bundled inside of a source-tree. (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #4) Out of curiosity, what do you intend to use this package for? Most/all consumers of gnulib just copy source files they need... packaging it seems odd. Packaging gnulib is against gnulibs working principles. = -1 from me on this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7) (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) It is nice to be able to use it without bundling in the sources: No. This is not the way gnulib is supposed to be used. gnulib files are supposed to be updated from git and the results to be bundled inside of a source-tree. This is one of the approaches. Another one is to update those sources regularly during development(gnulib-tool --update), and only release releases with a specific snapshot. But even assuming that gnulib files are copied and kept in tree, as you say, there's a question how to best do that. During normal development of C code, if I'm about to gnulib-ify my project, it is much more continent to say 'yum install gnulib gnulib-tool --import', than to say 'cd /var/tmp/ git clone some-address-I'll-have-to-look-up make -C gnulib cd - $OLDPWD/gnulib/gnulib-tool --import'. For the developer, keeping gnulib git tree updated is an additional chore, which is nicely solved by updating the gnulib snapshot through yum. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #9 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- RE-review :: 1. Done 2. Done 3. Done 4. Done 5. Done 6. Done 7. Done 8. Done 9. Done 10. ??? Explain , make (all) isn't do any thing ! 11. Done 12. Done Ok guys : I need this package to build this one :) https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools --- Uploading -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #10 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131022.git25fb29a-2.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #9)
RE-review ::
1. Done
2. Done
The URL should be the content of Source0, not in the comments.
Use:
Source0:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=snapshot;h=%{githead};sf=tgz;name=gnulib-25fb29a.tar.gz
Source1:
http://erislabs.net/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob_plain;hb=HEAD;f=debian/manpages/check-module.1
Source2:
http://erislabs.net/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob_plain;hb=HEAD;f=debian/manpages/gnulib-tool.1
3. Done
4. Done
5. Done
6. Done
7. Done
8. Done
9. Done
10. ??? Explain , make (all) isn't do any thing !
You call 'make info' and 'make html'. It should be:
'make %{?_smp_mflags} info html'
11. Done
12. Done
13. So, once docs have been built, there's no need to install the sources.
gnulib-doc should contain:
gnulib.info
gnulib.html
(and the main package should *not* have them).
14. README is useless, do not package it.
15. Also, all those chmod's are *not* necessary: some of those are executable
files, and the permissions in the git archive on them are OK.
16. .gitattributes should also be removed.
Ok guys :
I need this package to build this one :)
https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools
Like Ralf pointed out implicitly, you don't really *need* to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/174
I find https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kay/libabc.git great for
testing gnulib... With your current package, gnulib-tool --import seems to
work, gnulib-tool --test too, so I think we're on the proper path here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #12 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- 2. Done 10. Done 13. Done 14. Done 15. Done 16. Done https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/174 Removed Building Uploading -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #13 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131022.git25fb29a-3.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8) (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7) (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) It is nice to be able to use it without bundling in the sources: No. This is not the way gnulib is supposed to be used. gnulib files are supposed to be updated from git and the results to be bundled inside of a source-tree. This is one of the approaches. No, please read http://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/ Please carefully read the download section. Packaging it and dynamically update a package is abusing gnulib. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebl...@redhat.com, ||meyer...@redhat.com --- Comment #15 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- May be we should leave the decision the upstream maintainers? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #16 from Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com --- Although I personally use gnulib in lots of projects, I have never once wanted to use a distro's packaging of it. On the other hand, I know that some people do want it in the distro, if only because Debian has attempted it with what originally started as a once-a-month effort but has lately been less frequent: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/devel/gnulib How does your packaging attempt compare to their attempt? What release cadence are you planning to maintain? An out-of-date gnulib package is less useful than just using gnulib from upstream. I'm not opposed to the packaging as one of the upstream gnulib maintainers, but I don't see myself ever wanting to use it as a downstream Fedora developer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #17 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Consider asking upstream to bundle gnulib or stop this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #2 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Removed :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Informal review:
1. License is at least partially LGPL, so it should probably be LGPL, GPL+
with exceptions or something like that.
Licenses found:
GPL, LGPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later),
Unknown or generated, ISC GPL (v3 or later), BSD (3 clause) GPL (v3
or later), BSD GPL (v2 or later), *No copyright* Public domain,
LGPL (v3 or later), ISC GPL (v2 or later), LGPL (v3.1 or later),
LGPL (v2.1 or later), GPL (v3).
2. Source0 — just use
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=snapshot;h=%{githead};sf=tgz
3. Requires: remove sed, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions
4. Provides: why bundled(gnulib)? gnulib doesn't bundle gnulib.
5. There's no need to explictly specify permissions: install -dm755, etc,
should not be needed. Just say 'mkdir -p ...', and 'cp -p'. This will reduce
the noise in the spec file, making it easier to understand.
6. Why is gnulib-tool installed in %{_datadir} instead of %{_bindir} directly?
If it won't function correctly otherwise, then just add a comment in the spec
explaining this. Debian package doesn't do this, so it probably isn't
necessary.
7. /usr/share/gnulib/tests should be a separate package.
The docs should be a separate package too.
gnulib seems to confuse the hell out of rpmlint, but in the noise there are
some good suggestions:
8. Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gnulib
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo
9. If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find COPYING.LESSERv2 in rpm(s)
10. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
11. gnulib.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20131022-git25fb29a-1
['20131022.git25fb29a-1.fc19', '20131022.git25fb29a-1']
12. Check http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnulib, they have man pages. It would
be nice to copy them.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Out of curiosity, what do you intend to use this package for? Most/all consumers of gnulib just copy source files they need... packaging it seems odd. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- It is nice to be able to use it without bundling in the sources: just use gnulib-tool with appropriate options to copy stuff at build time. This way one always bundles the version that is available at build time, without updating manually. Kind of like running autoreconf instead of keeping configure in git. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- ok, fair enough. Just wanted to make sure you didn't think you could unbundle gnulib from all the packages that have it currently. :) Carry on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Alias||GNULIB Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- you should not change flag fedora-review to ? , it should be done by the official package reviewer for this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
