Spec URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf-1.0.13-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Dotconf is an configuration file parser which is used by many application to handle configuration files. - It is apache compitable - Context sensitivity framework - Provides autoconf macros for checking for dot.conf - Substitution of environment variables
Well, as this bug blocks speech-dispatcher (bug 432259) I want to approve this package soon, however it seems not a few issues needs fixing. For general packaging guidelines you can refer to the following pages. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines For this package it seems to be a package for libraries so it would be good for you that you install rpmdevtools rpm and try: $ rpmdev-newspec -t lib dotconf to get a skeleton spec file for dotconf.
(In reply to comment #1) > Well, as this bug blocks speech-dispatcher (bug 432259) I want > to approve this package soon, however it seems not a few issues > needs fixing. > > For general packaging guidelines you can refer to the following pages. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines > For this package it seems to be a package for libraries so it would > be good for you that you install rpmdevtools rpm and try: > $ rpmdev-newspec -t lib dotconf > to get a skeleton spec file for dotconf. Spec URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf-1.0.13- 1.fc7.src.rpm I have replaced both the SPEC and SRPM file on the server by the one made using skeleton spec file.
Well, would you again try to follow lib skeleton spec file again? - The ELF shared library (usually libXXXX.so.X.X) and its ldconfig symlink (usually libXXXXX.so.X) must not be in -devel subpackage. Only the symlink used for linkage (libXXXX.so) should be in -devel subpackage. - pkgconfig .pc file should not be deleted and should be included in -devel subpackage. Then -devel subpackage should have "Requires: pkgconfig" (please check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Also: - Please make Summary a bit more verbose. the summary "dot.conf" is not useful. - I recommend to use %{name} and %{version} in Source0 URL. In this way you don't have to modify Source0 when the version of the tarball is upgraded. - I recommend to use ------------------------------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- to keep timestamps on installed files. This method usually works for recent autotool-based Makefiles. - The file "INSTALL" is usually for people who want to compile and install the package by themselves and is not needed for people who use rpm. - For directory ownership issue of %{_datadir}/aclocal and for usability, I recommend to add "Requires: automake" to -devel subpackage (not BuildRequires). - For %{_bindir}/dotconf-config (in the source tarball it was dotconf-config.in), @libdir@ is expanded as /usr/lib on 32bits machine but /usr/lib64 on 64bits machine on Fedora. This means that /usr/bin/dotconf-config differs between on 32 bits machine and on 64 bits machine. Currently Fedora does not allow this type of multilib conflicts for -devel subpackage. You can use "rpmlint" (in rpmlint rpm) to detect some generic issues on your rpms. For example of a library rpm, you can check: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/oniguruma/oniguruma.spec
Created attachment 295402 [details] Patch to remove ASL 1.1 part for GPLv2+ compatibility By the way: - speech-dispatcher (bug 432259), which depends on this bug, is licensed under GPLv2+. So to make use of speech-dispatcher the license of dotconf must be GPLv2+ compatible. - However currently this package (dotconf) is licensed under LGPLv2 and ASL 1.1 as build log shows: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dotconf-1.0.13-1.fc7/dotconf-1.0.13/libpool -Wall -g -o libdotconf.la -rpath /usr/lib -version-info 10:4:10 -release 1.0 -export-dynamic dotconf.lo readdir.lo --------------------------------------------------------------------------- and src/readdir.c is ASL 1.1 Note that ASL 1.1 is GPLv2 incompatible, so this situation is not allowed. Fortunately for Linux as far as I checked the source code we can built this package without src/readdir.{c,h}. The attached file makes this package surely LGPLv2.
(In reply to comment #4) > Created an attachment (id=295402) [edit] > Patch to remove ASL 1.1 part for GPLv2+ compatibility > > By the way: > > - speech-dispatcher (bug 432259), which depends on this bug, is > licensed under GPLv2+. > So to make use of speech-dispatcher the license of dotconf must > be GPLv2+ compatible. > > - However currently this package (dotconf) is licensed under > LGPLv2 and ASL 1.1 as build log shows: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 > -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables > -I/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dotconf-1.0.13-1.fc7/dotconf-1.0.13/libpool > -Wall -g -o libdotconf.la -rpath /usr/lib -version-info 10:4:10 -release > 1.0 -export-dynamic dotconf.lo readdir.lo > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > and src/readdir.c is ASL 1.1 > Note that ASL 1.1 is GPLv2 incompatible, so this situation is not > allowed. > > Fortunately for Linux as far as I checked the source code > we can built this package without src/readdir.{c,h}. The attached > file makes this package surely LGPLv2. I have again updated the file at the server. Have included the patch file on the server also link:http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf- 1.0.13.patch. I have done all the edits as said except for the last one - For %{_bindir}/dotconf-config (in the source tarball it was dotconf-config.in), @libdir@ is expanded as /usr/lib on 32bits machine but /usr/lib64 on 64bits machine on Fedora. This means that /usr/bin/dotconf-config differs between on 32 bits machine and on 64 bits machine. Currently Fedora does not allow this type of multilib conflicts for -devel subpackage. I am a complete newbie to package building so can you please provide me some pointer regarding this issue?
Created attachment 295663 [details] Patch to resolve multilib issue * As we don't ship libpool.a, the part related to libpool.a can be removed from dotconf-config.in. * -L%{_libdir} is always unneeded. The attached patch should resolve multilib issue. When you modify your spec file, please change the release number to avoid confusion.
(In reply to comment #6) > Created an attachment (id=295663) [edit] > Patch to resolve multilib issue > > * As we don't ship libpool.a, the part related to libpool.a > can be removed from dotconf-config.in. > * -L%{_libdir} is always unneeded. > > The attached patch should resolve multilib issue. > When you modify your spec file, please change the release number > to avoid confusion. SRPM URL: http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf-1.0.13-4.fc7.src.rpm SPEC File: http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf.spec Thanks for the providing the patches. I have uploaded both the patches on the server (http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/) and all the SRPMs also. Have removed all the rpmlint errors and incremented the version. I hope to get this resolved soon..
For 1.0.13-4: * Source tarball - The tarball in your srpm does not coincide with what is written as %Source: ---------------------------------------------------------- -rw------- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 197993 2006-01-27 23:03 dotconf-1.0.13.tar.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 200442 2008-02-23 12:58 dotconf-1.0.13-4.fc7/dotconf-1.0.13.tar.gz ---------------------------------------------------------- * rpmlint Please check your rpms by rpmlint again? ---------------------------------------------------------- dotconf.src: W: summary-not-capitalized dot.conf dotconf.src: E: description-line-too-long dotconf is a configuration file parser. These libraries are used by many applications to handle configuration files. dotconf.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dotconf-1.0.13/AUTHORS dotconf.i386: W: summary-not-capitalized dot.conf dotconf.i386: E: description-line-too-long dotconf is a configuration file parser. These libraries are used by many applications to handle configuration files. dotconf.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0,13.4 1.0.13-4.fc9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Summary: - Summary must begin with capital letter. Also, please change the Summary "dot.conf". This Summary description is not useful. - description-line-too-long: ---------------------------------------------------------- $ rpmlint -I description-line-too-long description-line-too-long : Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ---------------------------------------------------------- - AUTHORS file is not encoded with UTF-8. Please change the encoding to UTF-8. - The EVR (epoch-version-release) in %changelog is not right. ---------------------------------------------------------- * Sat Feb 23 2008 Assim Deodia<assim.deodia> 1.0.13-4 - Applied patch macro * Sat Feb 23 2008 Assim Deodia<assim.deodia> 1.0.13-3 ---------------------------------------------------------- Also please insert one line between each %changelog entry. This is useful for Fedora's CVS system. Then, as this is NEEDSPONSOR ticket: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora Extras package review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=mtasaka-review-noone NOTE: FE-NEW blockers are now not complete. Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
(In reply to comment #8) > For 1.0.13-4: > > * Source tarball > - The tarball in your srpm does not coincide with what > is written as %Source: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > -rw------- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 197993 2006-01-27 23:03 dotconf-1.0.13.tar.gz > -rw-rw-r-- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 200442 2008-02-23 12:58 > dotconf-1.0.13-4.fc7/dotconf-1.0.13.tar.gz > ---------------------------------------------------------- I manually changed the encoding of AUTHORS and doc/dotconf-features.txt. This was causing teh problem. I have requested to dotconf developer to make in correct in there source file. I have also changed the encoding using iconv. > * rpmlint > Please check your rpms by rpmlint again? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > dotconf.src: W: summary-not-capitalized dot.conf > dotconf.src: E: description-line-too-long dotconf is a configuration file > parser. These libraries are used by many applications to handle configuration files. > dotconf.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dotconf-1.0.13/AUTHORS > dotconf.i386: W: summary-not-capitalized dot.conf > dotconf.i386: E: description-line-too-long dotconf is a configuration file > parser. These libraries are used by many applications to handle configuration files. > dotconf.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0,13.4 1.0.13-4.fc9 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Summary: > - Summary must begin with capital letter. > Also, please change the Summary "dot.conf". This Summary description > is not useful. > > - description-line-too-long: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > $ rpmlint -I description-line-too-long > description-line-too-long : > Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding > this number, cut it to fit in two lines. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > - AUTHORS file is not encoded with UTF-8. Please change the > encoding to UTF-8. > > - The EVR (epoch-version-release) in %changelog is not right. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > * Sat Feb 23 2008 Assim Deodia<assim.deodia> 1.0.13-4 > - Applied patch macro > > * Sat Feb 23 2008 Assim Deodia<assim.deodia> 1.0.13-3 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Also please insert one line between each %changelog entry. > This is useful for Fedora's CVS system. > > Then, as this is NEEDSPONSOR ticket: Done All. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > NOTE: Before being sponsored: > > This package will be accepted with another few work. > But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) > must sponsor you. > > Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other > submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. > For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) > are required to "show that you have an understanding > of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described > on : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored > > Usually there are two ways to show this. > A. submit other review requests with enough quality. > B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request > (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do > a formal review) Pre-reviewed bug number 435227. I will review more bugs shortly. > Fedora Extras package review requests which are waiting for someone to > review can be checked on: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/ buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=mtasaka-review-noone This url is not working.
Created attachment 296366 [details] patch for dotconf.m4 to remove warning Almost okay, please fix below. * doc/Makefile* are not needed for %doc * For now when I call autotools, warnings are printed out like: -------------------------------------------------------------------- /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_DOTCONF /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: or see http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending-aclocal --------------------------------------------------------------------- The attached patch should remove these warnings. * Please change the permission of the tarball in srpm to 0644.
ping?
Created attachment 297351 [details] dotconf-1.0.13-m4-underquote.patch
(In reply to comment #11) > ping? Sorry for the late reply. My school exams are going on so I would resume the work on this after the exams. By now i have extended the patch file you have made to remove other underquote errors also but i am not able to make correct this one ------------------------------- /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_DOTCONF /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: or see http://sources.redhat.com/automake/ automake.html#Extending-aclocal ------------------------------- I am not able to find solution for this. I have attached the extented patch file.
(In reply to comment #13) > By now i have extended the patch file you have > made to remove other underquote errors also but i am not able to make correct > this one > ------------------------------- > /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: warning: underquoted definition of > AM_PATH_DOTCONF > /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' > /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: or see http://sources.redhat.com/automake/ > automake.html#Extending-aclocal > ------------------------------- Umm... Actually this _is_ fixed :) Well, - This package itself is okay - Your pre-review seems okay for initial comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This package (dotconf) is APPROVED by me ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies that you need a sponsor. At the stage, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 7/8, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me.
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > By now i have extended the patch file you have > > made to remove other underquote errors also but i am not able to make correct > > this one > > ------------------------------- > > /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: warning: underquoted definition of > > AM_PATH_DOTCONF > > /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' > > /usr/share/aclocal/dotconf.m4:5: or see http://sources.redhat.com/ automake/ > > automake.html#Extending-aclocal > > ------------------------------- > > Umm... Actually this _is_ fixed :) > Well, > - This package itself is okay > - Your pre-review seems okay for initial comments > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This package (dotconf) is APPROVED by me > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Please follow the procedure written on: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join > from "Get a Fedora Account". > At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies > that you need a sponsor. At the stage, please also write on > this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and > your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. > > If you want to import this package into Fedora 7/8, you also have > to look at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT > (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). > > If you have questions, please ask me. > > I think they have changed the procedure from what has given on wiki page. There was no option to mail CLA. All I have to do is register there and upload a singed CLA. I have created the account with name "assim", signed the CLA and got my client-side certificate. Is there anyting more I need to do?
FAS sysadmins are now actually changing FAS to new one, which may be related to this. For now new Account System doesn't seem to be working for sponsoring process. So please wait until the problem is solved by FAS sysadmins.
Perhaps now I am sponsoring you. Please follow "wiki" page again.
(In reply to comment #17) > Perhaps now I am sponsoring you. > Please follow "wiki" page again. What I meant is that please follow "Join" wiki page again. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > Perhaps now I am sponsoring you. > > Please follow "wiki" page again. > > What I meant is that please follow "Join" wiki page again. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join I didnt get you. In my account it is showing that I have been approved by you for cvsextra and by Jonathan Stanley for fedora bugs. Do you mean to create another account? I tried but couldnt cannot register another account with same EmailID. And links on that page
Sorry the last post got submitted accidentally. Links on that page are still not working. Did you mean to submit package for CVS. I have planned to do that once my school exam gets over.
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > Perhaps now I am sponsoring you. > > Please follow "wiki" page again. > > What I meant is that please follow "Join" wiki page again. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join Hi, Sorry for the delay I just got free from my exams. Can you please point me to the next step to get this package approved? do I need to install Build-System Client Tools and proceed further from that point? did I missed something till now?
(In reply to comment #21) > do I need to install Build-System > Client Tools and proceed further from that point? Yes, exactly.
If you see some trouble about CVS importint procedure, please let me know it.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: Dotconf Short Description: Dotconf is a library used to handle configuration files. Owners: assim Branches: OLPC-2 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
I am getting this error: [Assim@localhost .ssh]$ cvs co Dotconf cvs server: cannot find module `Dotconf' - ignored cvs [checkout aborted]: cannot expand modules Tried with 'd' in small caps also. [Assim@localhost .ssh]$ cvs co dotconf cvs server: cannot find module `dotconf' - ignored cvs [checkout aborted]: cannot expand modules my keys are same as on the server. Is it that repository is not created on the server??
(In reply to comment #26) > Is it that repository is not created on the server?? Not yet. Please wait until someone changes fedora-cvs flag to plus.
CVS is processed manually by CVS admins. ;) Before I process your request: - Shouldn't the package name be 'dotconf' and not 'Dotconf' ? - Shouldn't the description be: "A library used to handle configuration files" Since it's already the description for dotconf, adding the package name there is not needed.
(In reply to comment #28) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dotconf Short Description: A library used to handle configuration files. Owners: assim Branches: OLPC-2 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes done :)
cvs done.
Thanks. Have made the builds(OLPC2 and devel). Closed the ticcket as NEXTRELEASE. Is there anything else to be done?
No, all you should do is done :)
I received this mail. dotconf has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc9.ppc64 requires /sbin/ldconfig On x86_64: dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc9.x86_64 requires /sbin/ldconfig On i386: dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc9.i386 requires /sbin/ldconfig On ppc64: dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc9.ppc64 requires /sbin/ldconfig On ppc: dotconf-devel-1.0.13-6.fc9.ppc64 requires /bin/sh On x86_64: dotconf-devel-1.0.13-6.fc9.x86_64 requires /bin/sh On i386: dotconf-devel-1.0.13-6.fc9.i386 requires /bin/sh On ppc64: dotconf-devel-1.0.13-6.fc9.ppc64 requires /bin/sh Please resolve this as soon as possible. I havn't build dotconf for these platforms. Do i need to re-build it for all these platforms also?
(In reply to comment #33) > I received this mail. > > dotconf has broken dependencies in the development tree: > On ppc: > dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc9.ppc64 requires /sbin/ldconfig > Please resolve this as soon as possible. > > I havn't build dotconf for these platforms. Do i need to re-build it for all > these platforms also? Just ignore those. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-May/msg01257.html
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dotconf New Branches: OLPC-3 F-8 F-9 This package is required by speech-dispatcher (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432259) OLPC-3 F-8 and F-9.
I am getting this error while performing import of dotconf repository [Assim@localhost rpmbuild]$ ssh-add --help Enter passphrase for /home/Assim/.ssh/id_rsa: Identity added: /home/Assim/.ssh/id_rsa (/home/Assim/.ssh/id_rsa) Identity added: /home/Assim/.ssh/id_dsa (/home/Assim/.ssh/id_dsa) [Assim@localhost rpmbuild]$ fedora-cvs dotconf Checking out dotconf from fedora cvs: Error: Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive). cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) i have used same keys before also and it has worked. I later found that in FAS account i have uploaded id-dsa key instead of id-rsa. I have replaced it still i am getting same error. have i missed something?
Well, first would you try to re-download fedora-upload-ca.cert available from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Install_the_Client_Tools_.28Koji.29 and re-run fedora-packager-setup ?
the error message indicates ssh auth failure. make sure the key you are using is the same as the key you have uploaded to FAS
I downloaded fedora-upload-ca.cert and ran fedora-package-setup. Still I am getting same error. i recently changed the uploaded key. Does system take some time to get it updated? I am using the same id_rsa.pub key which i have uploaded in FAS. I am able to use koji and have build all the packages on it successfully.
(In reply to comment #40) > I am able to use koji and have build all the packages on it successfully. Well, does it mean that you can rebuild dotconf now? (Would you try F-8 branch?)
> Well, does it mean that you can rebuild dotconf now? (Would you try F-8 branch?) Yes I just now tried [Assim@localhost rpmbuild]$ koji build --scratch dist-f8 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm Uploading srpm: /home/Assim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:03:53 199.38 Kb 873.48 B/sec Created task: 687799 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=687799 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 687799 build (dist-f8, dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm): open (x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 687802 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, i386): open (x86-4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 687800 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, ppc): open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 687803 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, ppc64): open (ppc1.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 687801 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, x86_64): open (xenbuilder4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 687801 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, x86_64): open (xenbuilder4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 4 open 1 done 0 failed 687802 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, i386): open (x86-4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 3 open 2 done 0 failed 687803 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, ppc64): open (ppc1.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 2 open 3 done 0 failed 687799 build (dist-f8, dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm): open (x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 1 open 4 done 0 failed 687800 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm, ppc): open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 0 open 5 done 0 failed 687799 build (dist-f8, dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm) completed successfully
Okay, then would you try to build F-8 and devel branch (not by scratch)? Also, for F-9/F-8 branches, please visit https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ and submit a push request to repositories. Then you can close this bug as NEXTRELEASE.
I tried building without scratch and this is the error i got: [Assim@localhost ~]$ koji build dist-f8 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc7.src.rpm Usage: koji build [options] target URL (Specify the --help global option for a list of other help options) koji: error: Destination tag dist-f8 is locked I generated new keys and tried everything again. Still no change.. Seems like there is some problem in my sshd. When i try to run it in debug mode it fails to run and gives this error : Bind to port 22 on :: failed: Address already in use. Is it cause of this?
No, as you did on F-9 branch, follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UpdatingPackageHowTo or from "Import Your Package" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
While building I got two errors 1) for devel branch i got this error(I am pasting complete log): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 692161 build (dist-f10, devel:dotconf-1_0_13-6_fc10): open (xenbuilder4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 692162 buildSRPMFromSCM (noarch): open (x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 692162 buildSRPMFromSCM (noarch): open (x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 692165 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, i386): free 692163 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, ppc): free 692166 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, ppc64): free 692164 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 692165 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, i386): free -> open (x86-6.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 692163 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, ppc): free -> open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 692166 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, ppc64): free -> open (ppc3.fedora.redhat.com) 692164 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-2.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 4 open 2 done 0 failed 692165 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, i386): open (x86-6.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 3 open 3 done 0 failed 692163 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, ppc): open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 2 open 4 done 0 failed 692166 buildArch (dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc10.src.rpm, ppc64): open (ppc3.fedora.redhat.com) -> FAILED: BuildrootError: error building package (arch ppc64), mock exited with status 1 0 free 1 open 4 done 1 failed 692161 build (dist-f10, devel:dotconf-1_0_13-6_fc10): open (xenbuilder4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> FAILED: BuildrootError: error building package (arch ppc64), mock exited with status 1 0 free 0 open 4 done 2 failed 692161 build (dist-f10, devel:dotconf-1_0_13-6_fc10) failed make: *** [koji] Error 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not able to find any thing related to this error. 2) While building for F-8 it gave me error that this has already been build. F-8 and OLPC-3 has been build successfully. I forgot to paste the changelog in some of the branches. Is it possible to rectify it? Do I need to update this package to Bodhi also?
Thanks. I hope speech-dispatcher can be build safely on these branches
(In reply to comment #46) > While building I got two errors > > 1) for devel branch i got this error(I am pasting complete log): > I am not able to find any thing related to this error. As you saw it, I've fixed this error. If you are using <F-9 machine, when you try "$ rpm --eval %configure", you can see that %configure tries to override config.{guess,sub} by /usr/lib/rpm/config.*. On F-10, this behavior changed and when a package contains old config.{guess,sub} the build may fails (and on most cases it happens on ppc64). > 2) While building for F-8 it gave me error that this has already been build. Perhaps you meant for F-9. > I forgot to paste the changelog in some of the branches. Is it possible to > rectify it? Please fix it in next update. > Do I need to update this package to Bodhi also? For F-8, you have to submit a request to push to stable on bodhi. (In reply to comment #47) > Thanks. You are welcome :) > I hope speech-dispatcher can be build safely on these branches For F-8, speech-dispatcher cannot be built unless dotconf is pushed to stable repository. If Hemant want to build speech-dispatcher on F-8 in a hurry, please ask rel-eng team (rel-eng_AT_fedoraproject.org) to tag dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc8 as dist-f8-override.
Would you submit a updates request for F-9 on https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ so that speech-dispatcher can be rebuilt on F-9?
dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
I am sorry for the delay. I am having some problem accessing the Internet. > Would you submit a updates request for F-9 on > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ so that speech-dispatcher can be rebuilt > on F-9? You mean F-8? I have done it requested it. dotconf is already tagged for F-9
Yes, I meant F-8, sorry.
dotconf-1.0.13-6.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.