Bug 249892
Summary: | Review Request: bouml-doc - Documentation for the BOUML tool | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Debarshi Ray <debarshir> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, mtasaka, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-08-16 18:04:50 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: | 247417 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Debarshi Ray
2007-07-27 18:05:42 UTC
I have submitted a review request for the bouml package here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247417 There has been a new upstream release for BOUML-- version 2.30. However the documentation was last revised on May 20th 2007 and is compatible with BOUML releases since 2.26.2. See http://bouml.free.fr/download.html How do I handle the value for the Version tag? IMO it is better that the EVR is 0-0.date20070520, for example http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease Ah.. 0-0.X.date20070520 is better, where X is incremented as 1, 2, 3, ..... That results in a strange looking /usr/share/doc/bouml-doc-0 as the documentation directory. Is that fine? Um, then: -------------------------------------------------- %install <snip> # Reorganizing PDF. cp -p %{SOURCE1} ./pdf cp -p %{SOURCE2} ./pdf mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_datadir/doc/%name cp -pr html pdf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_datadir/doc/%name %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %_datadir/doc/%name ---------------------------------------------------- is admitted. Just note: files under %_datadir/doc is automatically marked as %doc. * Please use "cp -p" to keep timestamp (In reply to comment #6) > mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_datadir/doc/%name > cp -pr html pdf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_datadir/doc/%name Just for the sake of consistency, would it be a problem if I used 'install' instead? (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_datadir/doc/%name > > cp -pr html pdf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_datadir/doc/%name > > Just for the sake of consistency, would it be a problem if I used 'install' instead? > My recognition is that "install" is to copy "files" (and set attributes), while "cp" is to copy "files _and_ directories (if needed, recursively)". For for this case, "install" command cannot be used (if I am not wrong). (Well, "install" can make directory, however I don't know how to copy files recursively using "install" command) Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/bouml-doc.spec SRPM: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/bouml-doc-0-0.2.date20070520.fc8.src.rpm (Maybe you have received the following comment, however I rewrite) Well, why don't you write just as following? ---------------------------------------------------- %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %_datadir/doc/%name ----------------------------------------------------- The file entry ----------------------------------------------------- %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) foo/ ----------------------------------------------------- (where foo/ is a directory) means the directory foo/ itself and all files/directories under foo/. Currently %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/html/ and %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/pdf/ are not owned by any packages. (In reply to comment #11) > (Maybe you have received the following comment, however > I rewrite) Actually you are the first one to state it. :-) > Well, why don't you write just as following? > ---------------------------------------------------- > %files > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %_datadir/doc/%name I tend to use the more verbose form for the sake of readability. A quick glance at the %files stanza reminds me that a directory (in this case %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}) has been created by the package, and a short listing of what it contains. I find this necessary since the %install stanza becomes too 'dirty' to realise what files are present with just a quick look at it. However I don't prefer to list out every file and sub-directory if the list is too long because that would defeat the initial idea. %dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name} %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/html/* %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/pdf/* ...is just enough to remind me that the documentation directory, named %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}, contains the both the HTML and PDF representations. Another example where I have followed this style is in gengetopt.spec (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243607): %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name}/getopt.c %{_datadir}/%{name}/getopt1.c %{_datadir}/%{name}/gnugetopt.h Since there were only 3 files, I listed them explicitly. If this does not violate the packaging guidelines and if you are compfortable with it, then I would be happy to keep them this way. :-) Well what is the real problem is that currently the directories %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/html/ and %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/pdf/ *themselves* are not owned by any package. In your way you must write: ------------------------------------------------------ %dir %_datadir/doc/%name %dir %_datadir/doc/%name/html %datadir/doc/%name/html/* ........... ------------------------------------------------------ or ------------------------------------------------------ %dir %_datadir/doc/%name %_datadir/doc/%name/html/ ....... ------------------------------------------------------ (Well, the reason I comment my way is because directory ownership issue becomes difficult to check and is frequently overlooked in verbose list way...) Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/bouml-doc.spec I took the middle path. %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name} %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/html %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/pdf I am unable to upload the SRPM since I do not have the bandwidth to upload a 26MB file. If you want I can upload it tomorrow. Newest spec file is okay, however this review request is blocked by bouml. Now I can see that the manual files are numbered, so please update your spec/srpm as such. What should the version-release values be? Although the files are numbered, it still says; "Last revision August 4th 2007, up to date, new compatible with Bouml releases since 2.30 "? I think I should also put in: Requires: bouml >= 2.30 Sorry for reply.. (In reply to comment #18) > What should the version-release values be? The latest doc files seem to have the name 2.30 explicitly, so it is reasonable that the rpm version is 2.30. Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/bouml-doc.spec Will be uploading the SRPM tomorrow. Don't have sufficient bandwidth now. Actually almost nothing to be reviewed, however: * rpmlint complaints: -------------------------------------------------- W: bouml-doc invalid-license GPL W: bouml-doc no-%build-section -------------------------------------------------- - Change the license to GPLv2+ - Add %build section, even if it is empty -------------------------------------------------- $ rpmlint -I no-%build-section no-%build-section : The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. -------------------------------------------------- Other thing okay. Please fix the issue above before committing to CVS. -------------------------------------------------- This package (bouml-doc) is APPROVED by me -------------------------------------------------- Note: the template of CVSAdminProcedure changed so please re-read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/bouml-doc.spec New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: bouml-doc Short Description: Documentation for the BOUML tool. Owners: debarshi.ray Branches: FC-6, F-7 InitialCC: Commits by cvsextras: no cvs done. Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/bouml-doc.spec I had to update the Spec to fix this build issue:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=98683&name=build.log Last %changelog entry: %changelog * Sun Aug 12 2007 Debarshi Ray <rishi> - 2.30-3 - Added 'mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in install stanza. (In reply to comment #25) > Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/bouml-doc.spec > > I had to update the Spec to fix this build > issue:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=98683&name=build.log > > Last %changelog entry: > > %changelog > * Sun Aug 12 2007 Debarshi Ray <rishi> - 2.30-3 > - Added 'mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in install stanza. Maybe you can (or should) file against "rpm". I guess this is due to recent changes in /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh (in rpm-build). Anyway when rebuild is done, please close this bug. Once you rebuilt this, please close this bug. |