Bug 166255
Summary: | Review Request: Sprog | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Gavin Henry <ghenry> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jef Spaleta <jspaleta> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | alex | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
URL: | http://sprog.sourceforge.net/ | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-05-08 04:25:29 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Gavin Henry
2005-08-18 11:36:07 UTC
If I change: %check ||: make test to %check: make test The whole build fails. What is actually wrong with: %check ||: make test New version: http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/Sprog-0.14-3.src.rpm http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/md5sums Change it to: %check not: %check: The "|| :" after %check is redundant unless you're targeting very old (certainly pre-Fedora) distros with your specfile. As I said, the build fails without %check ||: ???? Created attachment 117906 [details]
New spec file to address %check issue
Try the attached spec file - builds fine for me in FC4. Won't build in the
Extras buildsystem until all the deps are available.
Thanks Paul. Done. New version: http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/Sprog-0.14-3.src.rpm http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/Sprog.spec http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/md5sums Seems the dep perl-Apache-LogRegex didn't make it through the build process for the devel branch. The rest of the deps did get built. Can you push out a build of perl-Apache-LogRegex? -jef I thought I did. The Makefile seemed to have the name "meld" in it, so make tag wouldn't work. It is queued to build now. Gavin. Sigh.... Can't get this to build against current development tree. The blasted perl-Template-Toolkit package requires perl(XML::DOM) which used to be provided by perl-libxml-enno which was removed from Core on 20050921 nothing in developmnent right now provides perl(XML::DOM) so we are kinda stuck. I've opened a bug ticket against perl-Template-Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=170716 I might be able to dig up a cachsed version of -enno so I can build this locally outside of mock to get this review done. -jef okay i dug up a version of perl-libxml-enno and got Sprog to build locally. Everything checks out on the MUST list of review items... except... sprog needs a .desktop file since its a gui app. So there are 2 outstanding issues right now 1) perl(Template) is a requires and a buildrequires.. but is a blocker to getting this built until perl-Template-Toolkit is corrected to fix its dep problem 2) sprog needs a .desktop file. Nothing we can do about #1. But in the meantime can you spin up a new srpm that includes a .desktop file and the associated scriptlets. -jef I'll see to 2. Cheers Jef. Okay looks like the perl(Template) is now available to build against. Are you prepared to hand out a srpm that takes care of the .desktop file issue? We might be able to finally get this sucker built against devel tree this weekend and the review finished. -jef Yeah. Soon as I get a sec ;-) Finally done, with correct desktop file, icon as per Grant's request and a patch to fix some non-fatal build tests failing (provided by Grant). New files: http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/Sprog-0.14-4.src.rpm http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/Sprog-0.14-4.noarch.rpm http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/Sprog.spec http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/md5sums Sorry it took so long to get back to this. I'm having trouble getting to the http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/ directory Okay... Sprog-0.14-4.noarch.rpm builds in mock against fedora core development Good: rpnlint returns clean for mock built Sprog-0.14-4.fc5.noarch.rpm specfile and packagenaming are good Licensed as perl: GPL or Artistic Has a desktop file. no pre/post scriplets md5sum of Source in srpm agrees with upstream source url in spec. listed buildrequires look good no shared or static libs owns all the directories it creates no -devel subpackage needed patch to turn off some bogus test results in mock/buildsystem looks fine mock built package seems to work on shallow functionality testing Bad: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines Doesn't BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils doesn't use desktop-file-install in %install Needed Changes: *need to add desktop-file-utils usage as outlined in http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines *Need to remove the explicit license files being created from perdoc There was a policy change the policy now reads: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines - MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. I've made the necessary changes in Sprog-0.14-5.src.rpm http://jef.is-a-geek.com/downloads/Sprog/Sprog-0.14-5.fc5.noarch.rpm http://jef.is-a-geek.com/downloads/Sprog/Sprog-0.14-5.fc5.src.rpm http://jef.is-a-geek.com/downloads/Sprog/Sprog.spec I'm starting the clock for approval. If I don't hear anything back about problems with Sprog-0.14-5 I'll approve this in 24 hours. -jef My fault, sorry. Was setting up Catalyst on that domain, and forgot to put it back. Gavin. Okay not quite 24 hours, but close. Sprog-0.14-5.fc5.src.rpm is approved for FE development. So is this package in limbo or what? I don't think so. It's been commited, so not sure what is next. Cheers for the kick Ignacio Rebuilt to test everythign is still ok as Sprog-0.14-6.src.rpm. Commited to devel tree. Gavin. I tried installing Sprog for FC-4 from here: http://www.perl.me.uk/downloads/modules/Sprog-0.14-4.noarch.rpm just for kicks, just to see if the appropriate requires would be pulled in from FE on FC-4, and I found that perl-Gnome2-Canvas perl-Imager perl-GTK2-GladeXML have not yet been built for FC-4, although they all _do_ have branches for FC-4 in CVS (and hence work in devel). While you are waiting for the sprog FC-4 branch to be created, perhaps these deps can be built for FC-4 just to make sure it will work. (In reply to comment #22) > While you are waiting for the sprog FC-4 branch to be created, perhaps > these deps can be built for FC-4 just to make sure it will work. bug #182455, bug #182458, bug #182459 wtf.. can we PLEASE not overload this initial review bugreport concerning requests to build the fc4 branch. requests for fc4 branch builds should not block initial review request report resolution. as soon as sprog is built in devel.. this bug is going to be closed.. regardless.. of what the blocker status is concerning fc4 branch request. Because as a reviewer who has taken on assignment for this bug this is outside the scope of what the review request bug covers. -jef (In reply to comment #24) > as soon as sprog is built in devel.. this bug is going to be closed.. > regardless.. of what the blocker status is concerning fc4 branch request. > Because as a reviewer who has taken on assignment for this bug this is outside > the scope of what the review request bug covers. Sprog's been built. Waiting for being signed and pushed. Sorry for the noise, I didn't realise that Sprog bugzilla component had already been created. I've created a bug now: bug #182461. I've opened up bugs on dependent package, but I didn't make them blockers on this one, I'll switch them to above. ;-) That's the last from me. Looks like this package is imported and built. Please close this ticket or explain why it needs to stay open... package is imported and built... PLEASE remember to close package review when imported into cvs etc |