Bug 474843
Summary: | Review Request: pdfbook - Rearrange pages in a PDF file into signatures | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
dennis: 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: | 2009-01-08 04:17:15 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: |
Description
Mary Ellen Foster
2008-12-05 16:01:25 UTC
If anyone was *very* fast, I've actually just updated the above spec file and srpm. Another thing I don't know about: somehow this package ends up not building a debuginfo package and then complaining that the binary isn't stripped. I can't see through the flames on bug 192422 to see if this is an instance of the problem presented there -- I do have %build and %install sections (albeit trivial ones) ... The problem is that things are a little bit too trivial, so you end up rolling your own and the automated debuginfo extraction bits get confused. Try these: %prep %setup -c -T cp %{SOURCE0} . cp %{SOURCE1} . %build gcc $RPM_OPT_FLAGS pdfbook.c -o pdfbook %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_bindir}/ install -m 755 %{name} ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_bindir}/ %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc README %{_bindir}/* Builds fine for me, with no rpmlint complaints and a proper debuginfo file. Thanks for the suggestions -- I've incorporated them into a new version of the package: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/pdfbook/pdfbook.spec http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/pdfbook/pdfbook-0-2.20070930.fc10.src.rpm NB: I just replaced the above spec and SRPM with one that uses the latest greatest BuildRoot specification too. Note that you are guaranteed that %{fedora} >= 9 at this point, since you cannot branch for F-8. No harm in keeping the conditional if you really want it, though. I'm a bit confused about the versioning. One one hand, you could say that the version is simply 20070930 and use that as Version:; on the other hand, you could say that upstream has never released any version and so this is a prerelease. In the latter case, we don't use Release: 1 or greater for prereleases, so you would have: Version: 0 Release: 0.2.20070930%{?dist} according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages That's really the only issue I see. * source files match upstream. 242eb0943c5574a6a1ac7d1e40354d3e2be74e838e82241c0f6b5d1d06f913fe pdfbook.c 266a40b44aec5f182328054dd2ed301fb4c7d60414423a9bb4e2c27c7cffe1d4 README X package does not meet versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: pdfbook = 0-2.20070930.fc11 pdfbook(x86-64) = 0-2.20070930.fc11 = poppler-utils texlive-texmf-latex * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. Thanks for your comments! I guess I misread the version specifications ... anyway, I switched to the following because I think it's simpler and neater than the other alternative: Version: 20070930 Release: 3%{?dist} http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/pdfbook/pdfbook.spec http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/pdfbook/pdfbook-20070930-3.fc10.src.rpm Yes, that makes sense. The only concern when using the date as a version is that upstream may, possibly, decide to release version 1.0 one day. If that happens, you will need to use Epoch:. Cross that bridge if you ever happen to come to it. Anyway, everything looks good to me. APPROVED there is no CVS request here to process. plase set back to ? with a CVS admin request as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pdfbook Short Description: Rearrange pages in a PDF file into signatures Owners: mef Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: (sorry about the previous empty request ...) CVS Done pdfbook-20070930-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfbook-20070930-3.fc10 pdfbook-20070930-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfbook-20070930-3.fc9 pdfbook-20070930-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update pdfbook'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11592 pdfbook-20070930-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pdfbook'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-11569 pdfbook-20070930-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pdfbook-20070930-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |