Bug 993754

Summary: flex possibly affected by F-20 unversioned docdir change
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta>
Component: flexAssignee: Patsy Griffin <pfrankli>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 20CC: i, pfrankli, pmachata, ville.skytta
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: flex-2.5.37-7.fc22 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-07-19 21:29:10 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: 993551    
Attachments:
Description Flags
patch -doc from unversioned to versioned none

Description Ville Skyttä 2013-08-06 12:06:39 UTC
flex was identified as a package possibly needing maintainer attention
due to the F-20 unversioned doc dir change. The identification is not
foolproof, it is basically this grep:

    grep -E "(/doc|_docdir|_defaultdocdir).+version" *.spec

Please review your package and make the appropriate changes, if any. A
good starting point is checking the lines output by the above grep for
your specfile. For the vast majority of packages, after the changes,
the expected outcome is that documentation dirs in /usr/share/doc
should no longer contain the package version.

More information and tips:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/183942/focus=183943
  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/183942/focus=183973

Comment 1 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2013-09-05 01:24:31 UTC
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

Comment 2 Fedora End Of Life 2013-09-16 16:08:27 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 20 development cycle.
Changing version to '20'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora20

Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2014-02-13 12:08:23 UTC
Christopher, why did you set this to CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE?

$ grep -E "(/doc|_docdir|_defaultdocdir).+version" *.spec
%global flexdocdir %{_datadir}/doc/flex-doc-%{version}
%{_datadir}/doc/flex-doc-%{version}

$ rpm -qlp http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/flex/2.5.37/4.fc20/x86_64/flex-doc-2.5.37-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm | grep usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/flex-doc-2.5.37
/usr/share/doc/flex-doc-2.5.37/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/flex-doc-2.5.37/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/flex-doc-2.5.37/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/flex-doc-2.5.37/ONEWS
/usr/share/doc/flex-doc-2.5.37/README
/usr/share/doc/flex-doc-2.5.37/flex.pdf

The flex-doc docdir is still obviously versioned.

Comment 4 Christopher Meng 2014-02-14 06:37:38 UTC
(In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #3)

Sorry for the noise, mistake by myself when handling tons of bugs.

Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2014-04-25 06:37:13 UTC
In flex.spec:

%files doc
%defattr(-,root,root)
%{_datadir}/doc/flex-doc-%{version}

Should be:

%files doc
%defattr(-,root,root)
%{_datadir}/doc/flex-doc

=================================================

I see something interesting:

%global flexdocdir %{_datadir}/doc/flex-doc-%{version}

Well...

Someone define the docdir to be a versioned %{_datadir}/doc/flex-doc-%{version}, but this macro is only used for define, in %files it's not used anymore, I think it's just a waste.

Patch attached(with cleanup to catch the fashion ;-) )

Hope you can apply it soon.

Thanks.

Comment 6 Christopher Meng 2014-04-25 06:39:44 UTC
Created attachment 889532 [details]
patch -doc from unversioned to versioned

Comment 7 Christopher Meng 2014-07-15 02:36:03 UTC
Ville, I think you should give it a try? As I couldn't see any actions from the package owner.