Bug 961141

* This RR replaces #591190 as it was stalled.

*** Bug 591190 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/man/fr/man7/debhelper.fr.7.gz
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
- Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names).
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
debhelper.noarch: E: devel-dependency dpkg-devel
debhelper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debconf -> confide
debhelper.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 9.20120909 ['9.20120909-1.fc17', '9.20120909-1']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

incoherent-version-in-changelog may be fixed , and dependency dpkg-devel we need dpkg ?

from
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/debhelper/

we have a new version 
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/debhelper/debhelper_9.20130507.tar.gz

we should updated isn't it ?

Spec URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec
SRPM URL:
  http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18.src.rpm

for comment #3
 * The duplicate file revealed a far bigger issue -- find_lang --with-man
   only handle single man-page -- replaced with modified logic in our .spec
 * Updated one $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} so .spec is consistent
 * Updated changelog to have consistent version
 * About "dpkg-devel":
   - Yes it is needed. It contains all the tools used by the debhelper
     wrappers like deb-substvars, deb-shlibs, etc.
   - The dpkg RPM split mirror the Debian package split -- I think w
      should stay that way.
   - Is there a standard way to declare -- "this is an rpmlint exception?"

for comment #4
 * No. The new version belongs to Debian/sid (unstable)
 * Meanwhile, all my RR are synchonized with Debian/wheezy (the new stable)
 * On the long run, I think Debian/testing is a better fit for
   Fedora life-cycle. However, I think we should leave it for now:
   - Current Debian/jessie (new testing) has just been unfrozen, so not
     much of a difference.
   - If someone want to support EPEL, than Debian/stable may be a better
     starting point.

Also:
 * We still need the new dpkg (rhbz#648384)
 * And I'm in the process of pushing po-debconf
 * So maybe we should wait for few days for a final test

(In reply to comment #5)
> for comment #3
>  * The duplicate file revealed a far bigger issue -- find_lang --with-man
>    only handle single man-page -- replaced with modified logic in our .spec

Should keep comment the original find_lang --with-man, for when find_lang works as we expect. 


>  * Updated one $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} so .spec is consistent
OK

>  * Updated changelog to have consistent version
not complete yet need : 

-* Thu May  9 2013 Oron Peled <oron.il> - 9.20120909-1.fc18
+* Thu May  9 2013 Oron Peled <oron.il> - 9.20120909-1


>  * About "dpkg-devel":
>    - Yes it is needed. It contains all the tools used by the debhelper
>      wrappers like deb-substvars, deb-shlibs, etc.
>    - The dpkg RPM split mirror the Debian package split -- I think w
>       should stay that way.
>    - Is there a standard way to declare -- "this is an rpmlint exception?"

We need dpkg-devel before finish this review, I think , like others that depend on this one. 

Also you used tabs instead spaces , 
with vim we should use 
set expandtab 
by default , 
if you use vim to edit you can do: 
:set expandtab
:retab 
to fix 
-       s:%{buildroot}::
-       s:\(.*/man/\([^/_]\+\).*/man[a-z0-9]\+/[^.]\+\.[a-z0-9].*\):%lang(\2) \1*:
-       s:^\([^%].*\)::
-       s:%lang(C) ::
-       /^$/d
-       ' > debhelper-mans.lang
+    s:%{buildroot}::
+    s:\(.*/man/\([^/_]\+\).*/man[a-z0-9]\+/[^.]\+\.[a-z0-9].*\):%lang(\2) \1*:
+    s:^\([^%].*\)::
+    s:%lang(C) ::
+    /^$/d
+    ' > debhelper-mans.lang

(In reply to comment #5)

> for comment #3
>  * The duplicate file revealed a far bigger issue -- find_lang --with-man
>    only handle single man-page -- replaced with modified logic in our .spec

OK thinking better, rollback the change please, because the duplicate file is just a warning, so is not a big issue, we don't need to be fixed . It is better than this king of scripts . 
Thanks,

(In reply to comment #5)

> for comment #3
>  * The duplicate file revealed a far bigger issue -- find_lang --with-man
>    only handle single man-page -- replaced with modified logic in our .spec

OK thinking better, rollback the change please, because the duplicate file is just a warning, so is not a big issue, we don't need to fix it . It is better than this kind of scripts . 
Thanks,

(I'm still waiting for dpkg bugfix and po-debconf gathering enough karma)

Interim SPEC: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec

 * Changelog version fixed
 * No more tabs

Translated man-pages handling:
 * The problem is not the duplication, that's just what triggered
   my research. The problem is that all other translated man-pages
   will not get a '%lang(..)' tag in the RPM.

 * Now I cleaned the logic and documented it in the .spec:
   - We install man-pages manually anyway
   - So I generate the .lang in the same loop
   - The 'sed' becomes trivial (no huge regex)
   - I hope the comments in the .spec are good enough

Let's freeze this for few days until po-debconf is in Fedora repositories and
dpkg version is updated (any new response from maintainer yet?)

(In reply to comment #6)

> >  * About "dpkg-devel":
> >    - Yes it is needed. It contains all the tools used by the debhelper
> >      wrappers like deb-substvars, deb-shlibs, etc.
> >    - The dpkg RPM split mirror the Debian package split -- I think w
> >       should stay that way.
> >    - Is there a standard way to declare -- "this is an rpmlint exception?"
> 
> We need dpkg-devel before finish this review, I think , like others that
> depend on this one. 

Hi, I made some confusion here , I though we don't have dpkg and pkg-devel , but we have it, the bug #648384 is just to updated dpkg from 1.15.x to 1.16.x . 

debhelper.noarch: E: devel-dependency dpkg-devel as point out in bug #591192#c1 by Miroslav Suchý 
This should be safe to ignore, but if you did not make review yet I would maybe suggest to keep Debian original name dpkg-dev. So just a misunderstood of fedora-review .

(In reply to comment #9)
> (I'm still waiting for dpkg bugfix and po-debconf gathering enough karma)
> 
> Interim SPEC: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec
> 
>  * Changelog version fixed
>  * No more tabs

OK 

> Translated man-pages handling:
>  * The problem is not the duplication, that's just what triggered
>    my research. The problem is that all other translated man-pages
>    will not get a '%lang(..)' tag in the RPM.
> 
>  * Now I cleaned the logic and documented it in the .spec:
>    - We install man-pages manually anyway
>    - So I generate the .lang in the same loop
>    - The 'sed' becomes trivial (no huge regex)
>    - I hope the comments in the .spec are good enough

OK looks good . 

So no blockers 
Package approved

* We are still blocked on dpkg-devel >= 1.16.x (bug #648384)
* The up-to-date debhelper we review need up-to-date dpkg-devel

(In reply to comment #12)
> * We are still blocked on dpkg-devel >= 1.16.x (bug #648384)

Is really required dpkg-devel >= 1.16.x ? 

> * The up-to-date debhelper we review need up-to-date dpkg-devel

Other confusion here, dpkg-1.15 is already in repos , why update to 1.16.x needs a review ? is the package so different  ?

(In reply to comment #13)
> Is really required dpkg-devel >= 1.16.x ?

* Yes
* You can verify it very easily:
  - Install dpkg-devel we have in Fedora (1.15.x)
  - Try to build debhelper

> Other confusion here, dpkg-1.15 is already in repos , why update to 1.16.x needs a review ?

* No need to review dpkg-devel, just fix bug #648384 (update dpkg-devel)
* I just said the the *debhelper* we review need an up-to-date dpkg-devel

Hope it's clear now.

(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Is really required dpkg-devel >= 1.16.x ?
> 
> * Yes
> * You can verify it very easily:
>   - Install dpkg-devel we have in Fedora (1.15.x)
>   - Try to build debhelper

I can build debhelper, mock builds the packages on F17, F18, F19 and rawhide.

The all man pages are in wrong place 

for example for dh :

dh.de.1.gz shouldn't be in /usr/share/man/man1/ 
should be in /usr/share/man/de/man1/ but without "de" 
like this:  /usr/share/man/de/man1/dh.1.gz
and not like this: /usr/share/man/de/man1/dh.de.1.gz

Also is strange, the fact that builds in F19 and rawhide miss many programs in bin and some man pages 

diff list_18-i386 list_19-i386 -up 
-/usr/bin/dh_auto_build
-/usr/bin/dh_auto_clean
-/usr/bin/dh_auto_configure
-/usr/bin/dh_auto_install
-/usr/bin/dh_auto_test
(..)
-/usr/share/man/man1/dh.1.gz
-/usr/share/man/man1/dh_auto_build.1.gz
(..)

Document why we need dpkg >= 1.16.x:

 * The problem is not in the build, but in runtime (I wasn't clear enough)
 * Here is an example:
      $ dh_auto_clean
      dh_auto_clean: unable to load build flags: Can't locate Dpkg/BuildFlags.pm
      in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5
      /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl
      /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .) at (eval 3) line 2.
      BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at (eval 3) line 2.

 * This perl class doesn't exist at all in dpkg-devel <= 1.15.x

 * In dpkg >= 1.16.x, all perl classes are packaged in libdpkg-perl

 * So, I'll fix dependencies as follows:
   - BuildRequires: dpkg-devel  # it pulls libdpkg-perl as well
   - Requires: libdpkg-perl

 * And we get one less rpmlint error (about runtime depends on *-devel package)

I'll fix this together with fixes from comment #16 and upload new spec/srpm

(In reply to comment #17)

If so please replace:  

BuildRequires:  dpkg-devel 
by
BuildRequires:  dpkg-devel >= 1.16

and

Requires:       dpkg-devel
by 
Requires:       dpkg-devel >= 1.16

I just want to note.

(In reply to comment #18)
> and
> 
> Requires:       dpkg-devel
> by 
> Requires:       dpkg-devel >= 1.16

Citation:
(In reply to comment #17)
>  * So, I'll fix dependencies as follows:
>    - BuildRequires: dpkg-devel  # it pulls libdpkg-perl as well
>    - Requires: libdpkg-perl

There would not runtime requirement of -devel.

Spec URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec
SRPM URL:
   http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18.src.rpm

* Manual pages (In reply to comment #16):
  - Found a far better solution: install man-pages via dh_installman
  - Luckily, man-pages layout is FHS compliant in both Fedora/Debian
  - The debhelper-mans.lang is generated as before (Fedora specific).

* Dependencies (In reply to comment #19 and comment 18):
  - Build-Requires: dpkg-devel
    # No need for specific version (both dpkg 1.15.x and 1.16.x are OK)
    
  - Requires: libdpkg-perl
    # No need to specify version, libdpkg-perl was added only at 1.16.x
    # Not a '*-devel' package -- Good.
    # Minor problem: rpmlint complains about 'noarch' debhelper that
      depends on 'lib*' package.

* So what about rpmlint?
  - Basically, rpmlint is wrong: the libdpkg-perl contains only pure perl
    modules (updated bug #648384 so that dpkg.spec correctly marks
    libdpkg-perl is 'noarch')

  - Either we surrender to rpmlint and rename libdpkg-perl. IMO it's a bad
    idea -- better stick to upstream names per Fedora policy.

  - Or we ignore this rpmlint error (maybe file a bug against rpmlint?)

* ... and we are still blocked by bug #648384 -- dpkg too old

Hi, before review , lets fixes things and see you agree ...
I change packages names of dpkg in rawhide , because make sense and think it is the fedora way.
libdpkg-perl -> dpkg-perl (fedora usually don't start with lib, sometime we may use dpkg-libs or dpkg-perl.libs )
dpkg-devel -> dpkg-dev (devel is a reserved word for headers of dpkg) .
and .h .a .so -> dpkg-devel 
we always could rollback my commits .

some answers inline 


(In reply to comment #20)
> Spec URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec
> SRPM URL:
>   
> http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18.src.rpm
> 
> * Manual pages (In reply to comment #16):
>   - Found a far better solution: install man-pages via dh_installman
>   - Luckily, man-pages layout is FHS compliant in both Fedora/Debian
>   - The debhelper-mans.lang is generated as before (Fedora specific).
> 
> * Dependencies (In reply to comment #19 and comment 18):
>   - Build-Requires: dpkg-devel
>     # No need for specific version (both dpkg 1.15.x and 1.16.x are OK)

will be Build-Requires: dpkg-dev

>     
>   - Requires: libdpkg-perl
>     # No need to specify version, libdpkg-perl was added only at 1.16.x
>     # Not a '*-devel' package -- Good.

OK
will be Build-Requires: dpkg-perl 

>     # Minor problem: rpmlint complains about 'noarch' debhelper that
>       depends on 'lib*' package.

this took two commits dpkg-perl can't be noarch because /usr/lib/dpkg/parsechangelog/debian 
and /usr/lib64/dpkg/parsechangelog/debian , I'm not sure what this parsechangelog/debian do and if shouldn't be in other place than /usr/lib/dpkg/

> * So what about rpmlint?
>   - Basically, rpmlint is wrong: the libdpkg-perl contains only pure perl
>     modules (updated bug #648384 so that dpkg.spec correctly marks
>     libdpkg-perl is 'noarch')

dpkg-perl can't be noarch

> 
>   - Either we surrender to rpmlint and rename libdpkg-perl. IMO it's a bad
>     idea -- better stick to upstream names per Fedora policy.
> 
>   - Or we ignore this rpmlint error (maybe file a bug against rpmlint?)
> 
> * ... and we are still blocked by bug #648384 -- dpkg too old

we have dpkg-1.6 in rawhide , so I could review this bug properly :)  

Best regards,

errata :
where:
or dpkg-perl.libs )
should be:
or dpkg-perl-libs )

where :
Build-Requires: dpkg-perl 
should be: 
Requires: dpkg-perl

* Just updated bug #648384 so the information is there.

* Your naming is good, so in debhelper:
      Build-Requires: dpkg-dev
      Requires: dpkg-perl
     
* However, dpkg-perl IS 'noarch'. Here is a summary:
  - The /usr/lib/dpkg/parsechangelog/debian is just a perl script
  - It is in /usr/lib because Debian doesn't have a /usr/libexec

Created attachment 749662 [details]
update dependencies of (new) dpkg

Hi, 
we need update dependencies of dpkg , 
my propose specify dpkg versions >= 1.16.10 to force to use the newer dpkg packages .
all rest, seems to me, is OK and ready to be approved. 
could you apply this patch to the review ?

please

* IMO, there's no need for explicit version forcing:
  - We already Require "dpkg-perl" which exist *only* in dpkg >= 1.6.x
  - And "dpkg-perl" Requires "dpkg" with *same* version

* Anyway I only wait for the push of final dpkg (e.g: in rawhide), so I can test
  all these scenarios (including upgrades) before we set these dependencies
  in stone.

Thanks,

(In reply to comment #26)
> * IMO, there's no need for explicit version forcing:
>   - We already Require "dpkg-perl" which exist *only* in dpkg >= 1.6.x
>   - And "dpkg-perl" Requires "dpkg" with *same* version

OK , fine by me 
 
> * Anyway I only wait for the push of final dpkg (e.g: in rawhide), so I can
> test
>   all these scenarios (including upgrades) before we set these dependencies
>   in stone.

dpkg is already in rawhide 

    #repoquery  --releasever=rawhide --disablerepo=\*updates\* -q dpkg
dpkg-0:1.16.10-2.fc20.x86_64

Good, haven't noticed it.

So here is the final debhelper (I hope):
 Spec URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec
 SRPM URL:
    http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc20.src.rpm

Tested on rawhide, looks OK, waiting for final approval.

Spec URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper.spec
SRPM URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc20.src.rpm

for:
fedora-review -b 961141
INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 961141
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 961141
ERROR: 'Cannot find source rpm URL'

Package APPROVED , 
you may proceed with SCM request.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: debhelper
Short Description: Helper programs for Debian rules
Owners: oron
Branches: f18 f19
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Hi,
Since we already got debconf, po-debconf and dpkg on testings, you may build debhelper for F19 , I tested with dh-make :)

we just need do:
cd dh-make
fedpkg switch-branch f19
git merge master
fedpkg push
fedpkg build
fedpkg update (please indicate this bug) 

Thanks,

In reply to comment #33
 * Some things cannot be rushed just because we want

 * debhelper is pushed, but the build obviously failed:
     http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5423518

 * The reason is very clear -- dpkg >= 1.16.x isn't there yet:
     https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-9094/dpkg-1.16.10-3.fc19

 * There's nothing we can do until it's in stable repositories

(In reply to Oron Peled from comment #34)

not anymore, dpkg is in updates stable of F19 , Please do a 
cd debhelper
fedpkg switch-branch f19 
fedpkg build (to build debhelper finally P)) 
fedpkg update (please indicate this bug) 

Thanks,

debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc19

debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18

debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.