Bug 452872

Some random comments 0.20080515-1:

* Versioning
  - If you think %bmake_date should not be treated as a formal
    version, then versioning this package as
    0-0.X.%{bmake_date}%{?dist}
    (i.e. version 0, release number 0.X.%{bmake_date} with suffix
          %{?dist} where X is incremented every time you modify
          your spec file)
    is better.

  - Also please remove Epoch.

* BuildRequires
  - This does not build on dist-f10:
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=687706
    "BuildRequires: util-linux" is needed (on F-10 util-linux-ng
    Provides util-linux)

* %prep usage
----------------------------------------------------------------
%setup -q -n bmake
tar -x -z -f %{SOURCE1}
----------------------------------------------------------------
  - can be replaced by
----------------------------------------------------------------
%setup -q -n %{name} -a 1
----------------------------------------------------------------

* %defattr
  - Now we recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)

* Directory issue
  - The man directory %{_mandir}/cat1 is nonusual. Please move
    the man file to section 1 or explain why you want to "create"
    cat1 directory.

* Permission issue
  - The directory %{_datadir}/mk has 0775 permission, which should usually
    be 0755.

  - And bmake.1 has 0444 permission, which should be 0644.

! Timestamps
  - This package installs many .mk files which are not modified during
    build and preserving timestamps on those files are preferable.
    Consider to add
-----------------------------------------------------------------
sed -i.timestamp -e 's|^cp_f=-f|cp_f=-pf|' mk/install-mk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
    at %prep to keep timestamps on those files.

Thank you for your comments, Mamoru.  The fixed files can be found at:

Spec URL: ftp://portal.pc.ac.upc.edu/pub/fedora/bmake.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://portal.pc.ac.upc.edu/pub/fedora/bmake-20080515-1.fc9.src.rpm

* I have removed the 0. number from the beginning of the version.
  The NetBSD package does not do this, and considering that that
  package is the official one, Fedora can as well use the same
  policy for the versioning.

* The cat1 directory is gone.  man/cat1 is the directory used
  in NetBSD to hold the preformatted manual pages.  bmake
  installs only the preformatted one because some systems do
  not have the mdoc macro set and therefore cannot format the
  page correctly.  I have modified the package to install the
  mdoc page into the correct place, and everything seems to
  work just fine.

Now... maybe it'd be a better idea to package the mk files on their own, given
that they are distributed separately mainstream and carry a different version
number?  That will require some tricky hacks in the makefile, but may be better
for packaging reasons.

Thanks again.

Before checking your srpm on comment 2:
(In reply to comment #2)
> Now... maybe it'd be a better idea to package the mk files on their own, given
> that they are distributed separately mainstream and carry a different version
> number?  

Of course it is preferable.

> That will require some tricky hacks in the makefile, 
Perhaps creating mk/ directory under %builddir/bmake and creating symlinks under
mk/ which point to  the installed mk files (under %_datadir/mk) will do the trick
(although I have not checked it).
When you do so, please submit another review request for "mk".

> for packaging reasons.
> 
> Thanks again.

Well, the configure script has a flag to tell it where the mk files are, so it
is a matter of pointing it to the installed ones.  However, I'll have to make
the bmake makefile skip the installation of the mk files, because they are
already in place.  Tricky, but not difficult.

Anyway, you mention the name "mk".  It might be better to use the "mk-files"
name, even if it does not match the tarball name, just to make it consistent
with the one used in NetBSD.

Will submit the new package as soon as I have it, and will mark this bug report
dependent on the new one.

OK, I've submitted the mk-files package I mentioned and updated the bmake one.

Correct addresses for bmake are:

Spec URL: ftp://portal.pc.ac.upc.edu/pub/fedora/bmake.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://portal.pc.ac.upc.edu/pub/fedora/bmake-20080515-1.fc10.src.rpm

* Without "BuildRequires: mk-files", your srpm on comment 5 does not build.
  Please add this.
* Perhaps Requires: mk-files *">= 20070430"* is redundant.

Other things are okay.
! Note: Usually to keep timestamps on installed files, when using "install" or
        "cp" commands, "-p" option must be added. However for this package
        all files (except for %doc files) are modified during build and "-p"
        option does not make sense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              This package (bmake) is APPROVED by me
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argh, bad habits from other packaging systems.  I assumed Requires implied
BuildRequires.

As regards the version number in the dependency of mk-files, yes, it is probably
redundant.  I listed the version to ensure that any installation of a specific
bmake package had a (minor) known version of mk-files.  But since the two
packages are new, it makes little sense.  (Plus I just rechecked the NetBSD
package and it does not list any version explicitly.)

I've fixed these two issues and updated the Spec and SRPM files.

Well, okay, so as I wrote in bug 453821 would you follow "Join" wiki again
so that I can sponsor you?

Yes, sorry Mamoru.  I already did the steps until the "Get Sponsored" section,
but was waiting to tell you because I'm rather busy this week with work stuff.

Anyway.  The account I set up in FAS is named jmmv.  Now, from what I
understood, I cannot continue doing the steps from the "Add Package to CVS and
Set Owner" section onwards.  Either I need to gain some privileges (be
sponsored?) or someone else has to do the cvs work for me; is that right?

Thank you for your help.

SOrry, for some unknown reason I missed your previous comment 9.

Anyway, first please fix your FAS email address. This (FAS email address) must
coincide with that of your bugzilla account (or create another bugzilla account with
the same address on FAS)

OK, email address changed in FAS.

But while I see your bugilla email is _AT_netbsd.org, current FAS email address
is _AT_NetBSD.org ?

I see... well, the correct spelling for the domain name is NetBSD.org (even
though case does not matter for a domain name).  I am pretty sure I signed up in
bugzilla using the mixed case, but it seems case is ignored by bugzilla.  I can
change the FAS account once again to make it lowercase, if it is needed.

Okay, now I am sponsoring you. Please follow "Join" wiki again.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: bmake
Short Description: The NetBSD make(1) tool
Owners: jmmv
Branches:
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: yes

OK, I thought adding a package to a branch was a later step.  Adding F-9 now, as
suggested by mtasaka.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: bmake
Short Description: The NetBSD make(1) tool
Owners: jmmv
Branches: F-9
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

bmake-20080515-1.fc9,mk-files-20070430-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9

Okay.

When you think enough time has passed since these packages are pushed to testing
repo (the judgment is left to you), please modify the request to move these
packages to from testing to stable repo on bodhi.

Okay.  I'll do some tests when it is available for installation and then, if all
goes well, wait some time to push it to stable.  Thanks for all your help and
support!

bmake-20080515-1.fc9, mk-files-20070430-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.