Description of problem: libgnomeprint22 and libgnomeprintui headers and development libs needed to build gnome-python2, thus it should BuildRequires: libgnomeprintui-devel >= 2.2.0 (according to configure.in of gnome-python2 package). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gnome-python2-2.0.0-3 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.rpm -e libgnomeprintui-devel 2.rpmbuild --rebuild gnome-python2-2.0.0-3.src.rpm 3.Wait for build errors Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Triage->Easyfix
Removing EasyFix. Missing BuildRequires are (some may be redundant): libgnomeui-devel gnome-panel-devel gtkhtml2-devel libbonoboui-devel nautilus libgnomeprint22-devel libgnomeprintui22-devel This spec file needs to be largely redone because it depends on existence of stuff in the buildroot in order to conditionally include BuildRequires, which is wrong. This is because pkg-config and the .pc files that it looks for are not present during parsing of the specfile, which is then used to tell the build system which packages to install within the buildroot. I suspect this kind of requirement is missing from fedora.us documents. Perhaps it could be worded something like: "Do not use conditional BuildRequires unless they are only dependent upon packages within the defined minimal buildroot. Also do not depend on features or version of the running kernel." Any comments?
Without a comment in the spec file, it doesn't become clear _why_ it is done like that. Even if pkgconfig were added as a buildrequires, it would not find any of the .pc templates in a clean build environment and hence would not enable any of the sub-packages. --with/--without switches would be cleaner nowadays. The notion of "conditional BuildRequires" may need a good definition before it is discussed. There's a difference between "%define buildfoo 1" and "%define buildfoo $(do something to find out)". At fedora.us, most auto-conditional buildrequires are used to adapt a single spec file to the specific features of the different build target platforms (e.g. different chain of -devel dependencies, different vfolder structure of KDE 3.2, Python checks for versioned dependencies,...). [As a side-note, current "mach" is broken easily by anything in a spec file which is executed to modify buildrequires: https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1426 ]
Created attachment 103725 [details] Fix installed file permissions, own more dirs Here's one suggested patch, fixes the following: there are a lot of bad file permissions in the current package, some unowned directories, and cosmetic issues with the %doc's in all subpackages.
Created attachment 104539 [details] Patch to make BuildRequires complete. Looks like someone fixed the rawhide spec file to take care of the conditional BuildRequires problem in comments #2 and #3. This patch should add the necessary BuildRequires reported in the original report and Comment #2. It also removes a great many BuildRequires dragged in via dependencies. Tested with mach configured for FC2.
Created attachment 104541 [details] Patch to complete BuildRequires. Sorry, older version. This is the one that also removes BuildRequires dragged in via dependencies.
Please note that the patch in attachment 104541 [details] is not cumulative, and attachment 103725 [details] is still needed in addition to it.
I've tested attachment 103725 [details] and it is a definite improvement to the %files section. The only thing I noticed is that it needs to include the COPYING file, probably in the main package's %doc line.
Should be fixed in tomorrow's rawhide.