Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Created attachment 141360 [details] spectemplate for R modules
No objections, but I know absolutely nothing about R, so this needs someone familiar to drive it. Some comments/nitpicks about the template from comment 1 though: - Is "Applications/Engineering" appropriate for all R modules, or would Development/Libraries or Development/Languages be a better default (cf. other spec templates)? - rpmdev-newspec functionality should be added, and that allows purging some of the commentary and commented out items. - the "-r" in "rm -rf" for a single .css file seems spurious - %post and %postun assume write access to %{_libdir} and will result in rpmdb trashing if it's not available (eg. /usr(/lib*) mounted read only and marked as %{_netsharedpath}) or if the scriptlets fail for some other reason. With %{_libdir} the former is an unlikely scenario, but a "|| :" at end of the scriptlets wouldn't hurt nevertheless.
(In reply to comment #2) > No objections, but I know absolutely nothing about R, so this needs someone > familiar to drive it. Some comments/nitpicks about the template from comment 1 > though: > > - Is "Applications/Engineering" appropriate for all R modules, or would > Development/Libraries or Development/Languages be a better default (cf. other > spec templates)? Does it matters? :-) R (S/Splus actually) is a Turing complete language mainly focused in statistics. Almost all the modules are related with data analysis, that is why this is the general choice of Group. > - rpmdev-newspec functionality should be added, and that allows purging some of > the commentary and commented out items. > > - the "-r" in "rm -rf" for a single .css file seems spurious You never know, we really want to kill it. ;-) You are right, of course. :-) > - %post and %postun assume write access to %{_libdir} and will result in rpmdb > trashing if it's not available (eg. /usr(/lib*) mounted read only and marked as > %{_netsharedpath}) or if the scriptlets fail for some other reason. With > %{_libdir} the former is an unlikely scenario, but a "|| :" at end of the > scriptlets wouldn't hurt nevertheless. You are right. Relate to this package I would suggest just to add mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/R/library after the %install section since after R 2.5 this is needed. Regarding the initial %define debug_package %{nil} there should be a comment saying that this should only be done for pure R modules, because some of them have fortran or C/C++ code compiled into a library. FWIW with the additions of Ville and mine comments I would like to support the inclusion of this spectemplate in rpmdevtools. :-) I will change my cran2rpmspec package accordingly: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R/cran2rpmspec I will also refer this entry in fedora-r-devel-list to see if there is other feedback from the list.
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now, we will automatically close it. If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.) Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again.
This is still not fixed -- though maybe it could be fixed now since there are 2 templates here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/R I currently don't have time to lead that but I'll come to it one day.
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Combined template added in git, will probably be in the next > 7.3 release. It'd be great if someone knowledgeable about R would test this stuff and report back how it looks. https://fedorahosted.org/rpmdevtools/changeset/90f0cde95795ad48bfa7c628d23dd17c87c3c174
No feedback, included anyway in 7.4-1.
rpmdevtools-7.5-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpmdevtools-7.5-1.fc11?_csrf_token=018644e6f79eac4e110aeac47d19804d64593771
rpmdevtools-7.5-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.