Fedora Merge Review: mktemp http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/mktemp/ Initial Owner: than
Only some minor issues: Could use "make %{?_smp_mflags}"; not much of a deal for something this small. "make install" should use %{_mandir} instead of hardcoding /usr/share/man. mktemp-1.5-nostrip.patch can be 'cvs rm'd. Include README and RELEASE_NOTES in %doc? License should probably be "BSD with advertising", see priv_mktemp.c boilerplate.
Does mktemp even exist any longer? It seems that in current rawhide it's been subsumed into coreutils.
Jason, I would not say so, I can find the package in Rawhide (I don't know, whether we're talking about the same, but IMHO the package exists in Rawhide): - http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/ mktemp-1.5-25.fc7.src.rpm - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/mktemp/
Well, just look at coreutils: Obsoletes: mktemp Provides: mktemp = %{version}-%{release} Seems to me that mktemp has gone away. Now, that tsn't really the best way to do that since the package now obsoletes itself (guess I'll file a bug), but it does make it pretty obvious that the mktemp package is gone. Of course, you can still review it if you like but I can't imagine the maintainer would be all that interested.
Ondrej, this package does not seem to be needed any more, could you confirm?
New coreutils 6.10 contains mktemp - this program is 100% compatible with BSD version of mktemp (but it is completely different implementation). Current maintainer of mktemp is Than Ngo (than) - so I want to know his opinion -anyway IMHO it is not necessary to keep mktemp package - as the 100% compatible version is in coreutils. Mktemp is just small utility - the only difference I saw is in manpages - BSD mktemp has much more complex manpages...anyway - removal of mktemp should be clarified until F9 freeze. If current maintainer wants to keep it, I could remove mktemp from shipped coreutils utilities and drop mktemp provide.
Ondrej, the coreutils mktemp isn't 100 % compatible to mktemp, it doesn't have same options that mktemp provides. If we obsolete mktemp it will surely break many programs which use these options. I know sysreport that's the tool that uses -p option of mktemp! If coreutils mktemp could be fixed so that it provides same option as mktemp does, it's fine to obsolete mktemp, otherwise mktemp should be keeped.
Sorry, but coreutils 6.10 mktemp DOES provide -p option. This option is depricated, but still usable ... Or do I miss something? On upstream pages is "A different, but compatible, implementation of mktemp is available as part of GNU coreutils." . Please provide me an example where the BSD mktemp is doing something what GNU mktemp can't. BSD mktemp options: Usage: mktemp [-V] | [-dqtu] [-p prefix] [template] GNU mktemp options: Usage: /bin/mktemp [OPTION]... [TEMPLATE] Create a temporary file or directory, safely, and print its name. If TEMPLATE is not specified, use tmp.XXXXXXXXXX. -d, --directory create a directory, not a file -q, --quiet suppress diagnostics about file/dir-creation failure -u, --dry-run do not create anything; merely print a name (unsafe) --tmpdir[=DIR] interpret TEMPLATE relative to DIR. If DIR is not specified, use $TMPDIR if set, else /tmp. With this option, TEMPLATE must not be an absolute name. Unlike with -t, TEMPLATE may contain slashes, but even here, mktemp still creates only the final component. -p DIR use DIR as a prefix; implies -t [deprecated] -t interpret TEMPLATE as a single file name component, relative to a directory: $TMPDIR, if set; else the directory specified via -p; else /tmp [deprecated] --help display this help and exit --version output version information and exit So the only option I see as unavailable in GNU version is -V (and even that option is in fact usable)
i have overlooked it. It's fine to obsolte mktemp now. Thanks
than, in that case, could you complete the package EOL process for mktemp as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife so we can close this?
than: ping?
it's fixed now.