Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: [PATCH] specfile accords to new packaging guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Summary: [PATCH] specfile accords to new packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: cpanspec AssignedTo: steve@silug.org ReportedBy: mmaslano@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: steve@silug.org, fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com Classification: Fedora
Created attachment 474630 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=474630 add epel option
This patch should remove things, which are not needed according to new packaging guidelines and latest rpm eg. defining buildroot. The old behaviour is available under --epel option.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #474630|0 |1 is patch| | Attachment #474630|application/x-awk |text/plain mime type| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-01-28 23:45:57 EST --- I think it would be better to add an a general option to specify a distribution's name instead of "one option per distro".
I.e. I'd suggest to use --distro=epel-4 --distro=epel-5 --distro=centos-6 --distro=fedora-27 instead of --epel
Otherwise we'd end up with one new option per distro, whenever a the rpm conventions will change.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
--- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com 2011-01-29 01:34:35 EST --- Created attachment 475924 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=475924 incremental support for older RHEL releases
I liked Steve's suggestion on the list: extend the existing --old option to support "old" and "older" conventions by making it cumulative. That's how my own ~/bin/cpanspec is working. I'd meant to clean it up and submit it a while back but never got around to it.
The attached patch will allow cpanspec to generate specs suitable for f13+ (and el6) by default; using --old will generate specs suitable for older fedora and el4/5; using --old --old generates specs for antique distributions (as the current --old option does).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
--- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-02-01 10:04:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #2)
Created attachment 475924 [details] incremental support for older RHEL releases
I liked Steve's suggestion on the list: extend the existing --old option to support "old" and "older" conventions by making it cumulative. That's how my own ~/bin/cpanspec is working. I'd meant to clean it up and submit it a while back but never got around to it.
The attached patch will allow cpanspec to generate specs suitable for f13+ (and el6) by default; using --old will generate specs suitable for older fedora and el4/5; using --old --old generates specs for antique distributions (as the current --old option does).
Nice, your patch looks good. I've tested it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client fedora-admin-xmlrpc@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|steve@silug.org |extras-orphan@fedoraproject | |.org
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client fedora-admin-xmlrpc@redhat.com --- This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client fedora-admin-xmlrpc@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|extras-orphan@fedoraproject |psabata@redhat.com |.org |
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client fedora-admin-xmlrpc@redhat.com --- This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
--- Comment #7 from Fedora End Of Life endoflife@fedoraproject.org --- This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'.
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.
Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 19 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, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|19 |rawhide
--- Comment #8 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com --- Moving this to Rawhide.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |FutureFeature
Red Hat Bugzilla bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|Bug Fix |Enhancement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu
--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- I just had to make a few perl packages and indeed, cpanspec really needs an update.
The big one is that it's missing BuildRequires: perl and perl-generators, which are likely to confuse packagers who aren't familiar with the current rules. (
The Fedora guidelines have progressed to the point where some things that cpanspec does are now prohibited (with "SHOULD", so their use requires an explanation in the specfile). Use of BuildRoot:, %defattr in %files, %clean, removal of the buildroot as the first line of %install. It should use %autosetup and %make_build.
I can probably work up a patch to fix some of these, but as the patch in this ticket hasn't been applied I'm not sure whether there is any desire to see cpanspec catch up with current guidelines. It's still useful in any case, but not really a good thing for beginners to use.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
--- Comment #10 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com --- I think I'm in favour of diverging from the (extremely slow and unresponsive) upstream in this case.
I don't dare to promise you any specific date but I'll take a look at Iain's patch here and possibly implement other changes to make the tool's output somewhat more current. The perl/perl-generators BRs is a must at least, yes.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla