Spec URL: https://fjanus.fedorapeople.org/autoconf27.spec SRPM URL: https://fjanus.fedorapeople.org/autoconf27-2.71-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: There is a request[1] to add autoconf-2.71 into EPEL and as RHEL already contains autoconf package we need to create a new package with a suitable name for EPEL. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831941 Fedora Account System Username:fjanus
Overall goal is to be able to install _27 package next to default one (autoconf), to avoid breaking any dependency. Ok, few things that I might already mentioned or not. 1. /usr/share/info/autoconf.info conflicts with default package. 2. My testing failed after renaming package: autoconf_27 -v autoconf_27: running /usr/bin/autom4te_27 -v --language=autoconf --output=configure /usr/share/autoconf/autoconf/trailer.m4 configure.ac autom4te_27: /usr/share/autoconf/autoconf/trailer.m4: no such file or directory This file was introduced in 2.72: https://github.com/autotools-mirror/autoconf/commit/aba75f6d4a9c875a9d5d90a07c6b3678db66a4bf I guess that some option was not changed before compilation or missing custom ENV variable: https://github.com/autotools-mirror/autoconf/blob/6d38e9fa2b39b3c3a8e4d6d7da38c59909d3f39d/bin/autoconf.as#L93
It can be fixed by adding variable to make: > pkgdatadir="/usr/share/autoconf_27"
Please call this package "autoconf2.71" and use the appropriate suffixes.
Neal we can discuss it but "autoconf2.71" I didn`t find it as the best option. This package was intended due to epel. There is the requirement to add the latest Autoconf. So for the update to the next release will be not necessary to create a new package.
(In reply to Filip Januš from comment #4) > Neal we can discuss it but "autoconf2.71" I didn`t find it as the best > option. This package was intended due to epel. There is the requirement to > add the latest Autoconf. So for the update to the next release will be not > necessary to create a new package. The versioned package guidelines of Fedora apply here, which is why I say you should make that change *now* and make sure it works. For sure it's effectively a forward compatibility package rather than a backward compatibility one, but we're doing *exactly* the same thing with OpenSSL 3.x in EPEL 8: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openssl3/blob/epel8/f/openssl3.spec I'd rather you do it right up front rather than being forced to fix it later when someone realizes this happened.
(And note, package reviews are normally supposed to have the finalized package name, so it's a bit weird that we don't have that yet...)
Thanks for your attention. There was a quite big discussion in my team a few months ago and compatibility requirements are present in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831941. But long story short, RHEL 8 version cant be updated due to compatibility and we also want to follow the request for the latest versions. The easiest way how to satisfy such requirements was considered EPEL. From the name point of view, I wanted to discuss it in fedora-devel but there wasn`t a clear response. So From my point of view autoconf27 using for the autoconf27.x versions is the best option. If you see any other issue I would like to discuss it , but from the compatibility side autoconf27.x perfectly fit into our problem.
Now there shouldn't be any conflict $ rpm2cpio autoconf27-2.71-1.fc36.noarch.rpm | cpio -idmv ./usr/bin/autoconf27 ./usr/bin/autoheader27 ./usr/bin/autom4te27 ./usr/bin/autoreconf27 ./usr/bin/autoscan27 ./usr/bin/autoupdate27 ./usr/bin/ifnames27 ./usr/share/autoconf27 ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/C4che.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/ChannelDefs.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/Channels.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/Config.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/Configure_ac.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/General.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/Getopt.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/Request.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/Autom4te/XFile.pm ./usr/share/autoconf27/INSTALL ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/autoconf.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/autoconf.m4f ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/autoheader.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/autoscan.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/autotest.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/autoupdate.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/c.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/erlang.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/fortran.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/functions.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/general.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/go.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/headers.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/lang.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/libs.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/oldnames.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/programs.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/specific.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/status.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/trailer.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoconf/types.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autom4te.cfg ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoscan ./usr/share/autoconf27/autoscan/autoscan.list ./usr/share/autoconf27/autotest ./usr/share/autoconf27/autotest/autotest.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autotest/autotest.m4f ./usr/share/autoconf27/autotest/general.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/autotest/specific.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/build-aux ./usr/share/autoconf27/build-aux/config.guess ./usr/share/autoconf27/build-aux/config.sub ./usr/share/autoconf27/build-aux/install-sh ./usr/share/autoconf27/m4sugar ./usr/share/autoconf27/m4sugar/foreach.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/m4sugar/m4sh.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/m4sugar/m4sh.m4f ./usr/share/autoconf27/m4sugar/m4sugar.m4 ./usr/share/autoconf27/m4sugar/m4sugar.m4f ./usr/share/autoconf27/m4sugar/version.m4 ./usr/share/config.site ./usr/share/doc/autoconf27 ./usr/share/doc/autoconf27/AUTHORS ./usr/share/doc/autoconf27/ChangeLog ./usr/share/doc/autoconf27/NEWS ./usr/share/doc/autoconf27/README ./usr/share/doc/autoconf27/THANKS ./usr/share/doc/autoconf27/TODO ./usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf27 ./usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf27/autoconf-mode.el ./usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf27/autoconf-mode.elc ./usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf27/autotest-mode.el ./usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf27/autotest-mode.elc ./usr/share/info/autoconf27.info.gz ./usr/share/licenses/autoconf27 ./usr/share/licenses/autoconf27/COPYING ./usr/share/licenses/autoconf27/COPYING.EXCEPTION ./usr/share/licenses/autoconf27/COPYINGv3 ./usr/share/man/man1/autoconf27.1.gz ./usr/share/man/man1/autoheader27.1.gz ./usr/share/man/man1/autom4te27.1.gz ./usr/share/man/man1/autoreconf27.1.gz ./usr/share/man/man1/autoscan27.1.gz ./usr/share/man/man1/autoupdate27.1.gz ./usr/share/man/man1/ifnames27.1.gz
Package functions correctly after the changes. I see no more issues here. Package name 'autoconf27' makes sense to me if we want to keep 2.7.x version tree. From guidelines: > For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions of a package in Fedora to be installed simultaneously. > When doing so, the package name MUST reflect this fact. One package SHOULD use the base name (with no version information). > All other packages derived from it MUST include the base name suffixed by either The package meets these requirements. > The python-sqlalchemy package occasionally has multiple versions in Fedora for backwards compatibility. The most current version of python-sqlalchemy is named python-sqlalchemy and an older supported version is python-sqlalchemy0.5. No delimiter is used in this situation. This is an example from guidelines, when the suffix '0.5' is used. Someone could say that '27' suffix might be misleading if it was a different package because it could mean that the package provides version 27.x. Ofc we probably won't see so high version here but still. Author might decide to bump version to 27 for some reason and we have a small problem with confusion. We have a bigger one when someone try to provide version 27.x to the same repository as a forward compatibility. I would say this is not a strict requirement and it's fine for me but in another example: > The most current version of the v8 package is named v8. In order to package version "3.13", the package MUST be named v8_3.13 I can find packages that does not follow that rule. Addition to this in guidelines should be made to make it more clear.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Notes: ======= - bconds work as expected - No rpmlint issues - testing functionality on fedora/rhel8 ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 or later", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "[generated file]". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mkulik/2005318-autoconf27/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/autoconf(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/autoconf(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/autoscan(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/autotest(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/build- aux(autoconf), /usr/share/autoconf/m4sugar(autoconf), /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf(autoconf), /usr/share/emacs/site- lisp/site-start.d(emacs-spice-mode, emacs-common, lilypond, emacs- filesystem, emacs-irsim-mode, emacs-slime, gforth, autoconf) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 174080 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.71.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f14c83cfebcc9427f2c3cea7258bd90df972d92eb26752da4ddad81c87a0faa4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f14c83cfebcc9427f2c3cea7258bd90df972d92eb26752da4ddad81c87a0faa4 Requires -------- autoconf27 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/sh emacs-filesystem m4 perl(:VERSION) perl(Carp) perl(Class::Struct) perl(Cwd) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Errno) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Compare) perl(File::Copy) perl(File::Find) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(File::stat) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::File) perl(POSIX) perl(Text::ParseWords) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-interpreter Provides -------- autoconf27: autoconf27 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n autoconf27 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Perl, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, R, Python, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to mkulik from comment #9) > Package functions correctly after the changes. I see no more issues here. > > Package name 'autoconf27' makes sense to me if we want to keep 2.7.x version > tree. From guidelines: > The version isn't 2.7.x, it's 2.7x, which is very different. Previous autoconf versions were "autoconf213", "autoconf268", etc. as we previously didn't mandate that the version form had to match the actual version structure with a decimals. Now we do, so the correct form is "autoconf2.71". If you assume that it's getting updated versions, then you could do "autoconf2.7x".
Thanks Neal, Ok we can use "autoconf2.7x" I will change it.
Files with new names SPEC: https://fjanus.fedorapeople.org/autoconf2.7x.spec SRPM: https://fjanus.fedorapeople.org/autoconf2.7x-2.71-1.fc36.src.rpm
Looks good to me, now you should request a package space with fedpkg.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/41693
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autoconf2.7x
package ready dnf install autoconf autoconf2.7x-2.71-1.el8.noarch.rpm Dependencies resolved. ============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================== Package Architecture Version Repository Size ============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================== Installing: autoconf noarch 2.69-29.el8 rhel-AppStream 711 k autoconf2.7x noarch 2.71-1.el8 @commandline 767 k Installing dependencies: m4 x86_64 1.4.18-7.el8 rhel 223 k Transaction Summary ============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================== Install 3 Packages Total size: 1.7 M Total download size: 933 k Installed size: 5.0 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: (1/2): m4-1.4.18-7.el8.x86_64.rpm 6.6 MB/s | 223 kB 00:00 (2/2): autoconf-2.69-29.el8.noarch.rpm 11 MB/s | 711 kB 00:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 14 MB/s | 933 kB 00:00 Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded. Running transaction Preparing : 1/1 Installing : m4-1.4.18-7.el8.x86_64 1/3 Running scriptlet: m4-1.4.18-7.el8.x86_64 1/3 Installing : autoconf-2.69-29.el8.noarch 2/3 Running scriptlet: autoconf-2.69-29.el8.noarch 2/3 Installing : autoconf2.7x-2.71-1.el8.noarch 3/3 Running scriptlet: autoconf2.7x-2.71-1.el8.noarch 3/3 Verifying : m4-1.4.18-7.el8.x86_64 1/3 Verifying : autoconf-2.69-29.el8.noarch 2/3 Verifying : autoconf2.7x-2.71-1.el8.noarch 3/3 Installed products updated. Installed: autoconf-2.69-29.el8.noarch autoconf2.7x-2.71-1.el8.noarch m4-1.4.18-7.el8.x86_64 Complete!
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-8127e13c71 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-8127e13c71
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-8127e13c71 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-8127e13c71 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-8127e13c71 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.