Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace-1.3.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: What strace is for system calls, xtrace is for X11 connections: you hook it between one or more X11 clients and an X server and it prints the requests going from client to server and the replies, events and errors going the other way. Fedora Account System Username: dhowells
This is a packaging for Fedora of the Debian xtrace package: http://xtrace.alioth.debian.org/ http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=xtrace/xtrace.git
If this is going to be packaged for Fedora branches only then first change the spec to be compatible with current Fedora packaging guidelines. 1) Group is optional now so remove following line from spec Group: User Interface/X 2) Buildroot tag is not required now, remove it. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag 3) In %install removal of buildroot is not needed now. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Remove following line from spec rm -rf %{buildroot} 4) %clean is not required. See vhttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean 5) You don't need to write %defattr now. See last line of this section https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions 6) %makeinstall is NOT allowed to be used. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used Use following make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" This will also preserve timestamps of files directly being copied from source in binary rpm. 7) When you use autoreconf in %prep that mean you should add BuildRequires: automake autoconf 8) your make command should be make %{?_smp_mflags}
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2) > If this is going to be packaged for Fedora branches only then first change > the spec to be compatible with current Fedora packaging guidelines. Can some of these be checked for by rpmlint?
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2) > 8) your make command should be > make %{?_smp_mflags} What about the additional flags?
(In reply to David Howells from comment #4) > (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2) > > 8) your make command should be > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > > What about the additional flags? Actually, I don't need -DSTUPIDCC if I don't have -Werror. The problem is that there are places where the compiler can't tell if a variable is set or not and so gives a warning, so I'll drop -Werror for now.
Revised: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace-1.3.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
Few more things like 1) macro buildid is used but nowhere defined its usage 2) patches should get some reference in spec file in comment say. This is to tell why upstream tarball is not enough to directly package and why patches are needed and if those are Fedora specific patches or upstream submitted/accepted patches. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment If you need some more automated evaluation of your package then check the fedora-review tool output.
any updates?
I'm trying to get a patch upstream to fix a usage of an obsolete autoconf macro that the fedora-review tool spotted.
Thanks for the update.
I couldn't get any response from the maintainer, so I've included the upgrade of AM_CONFIG_HEADER() as a separate patch: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace-1.3.1-4.fc20.src.rpm
If you still insist to keep buildid then change the define word to global as per recommended by packaging guidelines. APPROVED.
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #12) > If you still insist to keep buildid then change the define word to global as > per recommended by packaging guidelines. Fixed. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace-1.3.1-5.fc20.src.rpm
Thanks for the update. Looks good now :) You can request for git branching.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xtrace Short Description: A program for X11 protocol tracing Owners: dhowells Branches: f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
If this package is build for requested branches then this review can be closed as NEXTRELEASE.
There is a conflict with glibc xtrace utility. $ rpm -qf $(which xtrace) glibc-utils-2.18-12.fc20.x86_64 $ sudo yum install xtrace -y ... Transaction check error: file /usr/bin/xtrace from install of xtrace-1.3.1-5.fc20.x86_64 conflicts with file from package glibc-utils-2.18-12.fc20.x86_64 xtrace from glibc-utils is older: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=debug/xtrace.sh;h=1e7635cbe49f9ed546d4ce19388ce08bb64701b0;hb=HEAD so xtrace from xtrace should be renamed to x11xtrace as noted at http://xtrace.alioth.debian.org/ at the bottom.
> so xtrace from xtrace should be renamed to x11xtrace as noted at > http://xtrace.alioth.debian.org/ at the bottom. Actually, it suggests x11trace. What do we do about this? I assume the package needs renaming?
yes please file new package review. If you want you may assign that review to me and I will do that :) looks like glibc-utils is not installed default that is why I missed it to check in this review.
The new package review is bug 1113541.
Let's close this then and review above package.
The Fedora xtrace package has now been marked retired.