Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 428725
Review Request: wiggle - help apply patches when 'patch' can't
Last modified: 2014-06-29 18:59:45 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle-0.6-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Wiggle is a program for applying patches that 'patch' cannot apply due to conflicting changes in the original. Wiggle will always apply all changes in the patch to the original. If it cannot find a way to cleanly apply a patch, it inserts it in the original in a manner similar to 'merge', and report an unresolvable conflict. This is the first package I've submitted for inclusion in Fedora. Additional i686 versions for rhel4 and rhel5 are available here: http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/#wiggle
I got the licensing wrong, so I just updated wiggle.spec with this change: --- wiggle.spec.orig 2008-01-14 16:18:54.000000000 -0500 +++ wiggle.spec 2008-01-14 16:19:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: A tool for applying patches with conflicts Group: Development/Tools -License: GPL +License: GPLv2+ URL: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/ Source0: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Patch0: wiggle-various-changes.patch
Andy, are you already sponsored? If not, you have to follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored and also make this review block bug 177841 ( FE-NEEDSPONSOR )
Thanks, Manuel. I forgot to add the blocker.
A few comments: The URL given in the spec is 403 (no permission) for me. The package fails to build: nroff -man wiggle.1 > wiggle.man /bin/sh: nroff: command not found make: *** [wiggle.man] Error 127 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.44906 (%build) Looks like you need BuildRequires: groff The package seems to have a test suite; it should be called in a %check section. Unfortunately it looks like the makefile calls it as part of the build process, but you could just call the wiggle and wiggle.man targets manually. The package doesn't build with the proper compiler flags, because the makefile tkes the ill-advised step of overriding CFLAGS. That will need to be patched out or worked around so the compiler is called with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
Thanks for the tips, Jason. It's interesting that the link for the specfile didn't work. Here's a new one and a new srpm: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle-0.6-2.fc7.src.rpm I made the suggested changes to the Makefile and included groff as a build requirement in the specfile. You should always be able to find the latest versions from my people page (at least until wiggle makes it into rawhide): http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/#wiggle
OK, that gets further but also fails to build due to a missing dependency on the "time" package. Adding that gets things going OK. I still didn't see the proper flags being passed to the compiler, but changing the make line to: make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{?_smp_mflags} gets that done and fixes the empty debuginfo package as well. You might change "report" to "reports" in %description. There's a COPYING file in the tarball; you need to include that as %doc in your %files list. You should also include ANNOUNCE and TODO; there's no point in including INSTALL ad I'm not sure about DOC/diff.ps. So still a few things to fix before I can approve this package. Checklist: * source files match upstream: 639f8bd48c58b1fa4f24a65bc8aa3e53219e7d48726e63e7c40f0701d1d89b9c wiggle-0.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK (one minor typo; no big deal) * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text is in the tarball but not included in the package. * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper (still needs 'time' to build; assuming it's there so that I can complete this review) X compiler flags are not proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64) (after adding BR: time) * package installs properly X debuginfo package is incomplete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: wiggle = 0.6-2.fc9 = (nothing) * %check is present and all tests pass (after adding BR: time): 50 succeeded and 0 failed * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files.
OK, I think I took care of everything. I don't think diff.ps is really needed in the RPM -- it's an interesting paper, but doesn't add too much to the tool's usage. I made all the other suggested changes though and uploaded new packages to the same spot: http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle.spec http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle-0.6-3.fc7.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle-0.6-3.fc7.i386.rpm http://people.redhat.com/agospoda/wiggle/wiggle-debuginfo-0.6-3.fc7.i386.rpm
Cool; builds fine and rpmlint is clean. Everything looks good to me. APPROVED I'll sponsor you; just let me know if you need assistance with the remaining bits of procedure.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: wiggle Short Description: help apply patches when 'patch' cannot Owners: gospo Branches: F-9 EL-5 InitialCC: linville Cvsextras Commits: no
cvs done. Any particular reason for cvsextras commits: no? This will mean that a limited number of people could assist with your package or fix things if you are unavailable.
(In reply to comment #10) > cvs done. > > Any particular reason for cvsextras commits: no? > This will mean that a limited number of people could assist with your package or > fix things if you are unavailable. not really, I'd be fine with changing that to 'yes.'
Done... and thanks.
So I've been scanning the wiki and mailing-list archives and trying to figure this out (and apparently missed the memo on this), but now that I've got and EPEL-5 branch what does it take to actually make it out to the base repo/mirrors/etc? I read in the meeting notes that the next testing->stable push will be in the next 2 weeks, but I'm not even sure how to query the status of wiggle.
for epel, you can check from here : http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/index.psp
Any reason why this shouldn't be closed now?
Nope, no reason. Thanks for reminding me.