Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/faketime/faketime.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/faketime/faketime-0.9.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: libfaketime intercepts various system calls which programs use to retrieve the current date and time. It can then report faked dates and times (as specified by you, the user) to these programs. This means you can modify the system time a program sees without having to change the time system-wide. Fedora Account System Username: halfie This package is being heavily used for doing reproducible builds. Koji Task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6035372 This package is called "faketime" because other distributions use the same name ("faketime") and I want to minimize confusion.
Why not make install?
I tried doing "make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} ..." but that does not work for this package. This package uses some hard-coded paths internally.
*** Bug 1018626 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please note: 1. The upstream name is libfaketime, so as per Packaging Policies, you need to take that name for the package: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming 2. Version 0.9.5 has been released, please package the latest version
Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/faketime/libfaketime.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/faketime/libfaketime-0.9.5-1.fc20.src.rpm I have updated the package.
I've been closely collaberating with upstream who sent me the 0.9.5 pre-release and we have been looking at various fixes he put in the final 0.9.5. It does not matter to me who owns the package, but see the 32bit work around and the PREFIX and LIBDIRNAME that were added on my request to upstream in the 0.9.5 package. My spec file is references in the now closed duplicate review ticket (see above)
I see this spec file installs the libraries in the system path, and not in a separate /usr/lib{64}/faketime directory. I don't think this library belongs in the system path as you never want programs to accidentally pick it up.
from upstream: Closer towards 0.9.5, all the dlsym()-based code was re-written and this patch was no longer considered necessary. Therefore, it'd be good to know whether someone found a system that still has this endless loop problem. This would deserve some more attention then. So I think the patch is a leftover that should be removed from the spec.
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #8) > from upstream: > > Closer towards 0.9.5, all the dlsym()-based code was re-written and this > patch was no longer considered necessary. Therefore, it'd be good to know > whether someone found a system that still has this endless loop problem. > This would deserve some more attention then. Without this patch, I see segfaults during the "make test" phase on Fedora 20 64-bit. So I guess that this patch is still needed.
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #7) > I see this spec file installs the libraries in the system path, and not in a > separate /usr/lib{64}/faketime directory. I don't think this library belongs > in the system path as you never want programs to accidentally pick it up. I now understand why your .spec used the /usr/lib{64}/faketime directory instead of /usr/lib{64}. I will make the necessary changes in my version. Thanks!
Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/faketime/libfaketime.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/faketime/libfaketime-0.9.5-2.fc20.src.rpm I have updated the package (to use a separate /usr/lib{64}/faketime directory).
(In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #4) > Please note: > 1. The upstream name is libfaketime, so as per Packaging Policies, you need > to take that name for the package: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming Please note thay the third sentence in the paragraph reads "If this package has been packaged by other distributions/packagers in the past, then you should try to match their name for consistency." And as was already noted in the submission (In reply to Dhiru Kholia from comment #0) > This package is called "faketime" because other distributions use the same > name ("faketime") and I want to minimize confusion. the use of the name "faketime" is not totally incorrect.
Hi, I have joined forces with Paul :-). So, I am closing this bug. Further work on this package will continue at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626 URL. I will be co-maintaining this package with Paul.