Bug 188480

Summary: colorscheme rpm fails to build due to bugs in spec file
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Prarit Bhargava <prarit>
Component: colorschemeAssignee: Aurelien Bompard <gauret>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 5CC: extras-qa
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-04-11 06:13:58 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: 163350    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch to fix colorscheme spec file none

Description Prarit Bhargava 2006-04-10 15:07:56 UTC 
Description of problem: 
 
Spec file fails to build RPM. 
 
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 
 
colorscheme-0.3-3.fc5.src.rpm 
 
How reproducible: 100% 
 
 
Steps to Reproduce: 
1. install source rpm and use rpmbuild -bb or rpmbuild --rebuild on source rpm 
   
Actual results: 
 
RPM build fails. 
 
Expected results: 
 
RPM build should complete. 
 
Additional info: 
 
Patch attached ...
Comment 1 Prarit Bhargava 2006-04-10 15:07:57 UTC 
Created attachment 127549 [details]
Patch to fix colorscheme spec file
Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2006-04-10 15:28:06 UTC 
The first part of the patch is trivial. By default, the %fedora macro
is not defined outside the FE buildsys.

But the second part is weird:

> -%files -f %{name}.lang
> +%files -f %{name}.%{lang}

What do you try to achieve there? You just change a file name in a weird
way, the name of the filelist containing message object files. The %lang
macro is normal used for flagging language-specific files with the locale
id, like

  %lang(en) %_datadir/helo/foo.txt
  %lang(de) %_datadir/helo/bar.txt

I haven't seen your usage before.
Comment 3 Prarit Bhargava 2006-04-10 15:37:08 UTC 
Hi Michael, 
 
Er ... maybe I'm wrong then :)  I think I got two things confused .. ignore 
the second part of the patch... 
 
P.
Comment 4 Aurelien Bompard 2006-04-11 06:13:58 UTC 
Fixed in 0.3.91-1, thanks.