Description: Uriparser is a strictly RFC 3986 compliant URI parsing library written in C. uriparser is cross-platform, fast, supports Unicode and is licensed under the New BSD license. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/liburiparser.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/liburiparser-0.7.1-1.fc9.src.rpm *Note: I haven't packaged a doc sub package or anything inside doc directory. The build system for that was separate, and I don't have any reason why. I had asked upstream and hope for some action. *I have filed a bug at sourceforge project home.
In case reviewer doesn't see any issues i think this packages can go through review without doc until other issue is resolved. The package will block libkml library which I will file in a while.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2044182&group_id=182840&atid=902834 Confirmed from upstream
Actually I don't see why a separate build system is a problem. In %build, just add cd doc %configure make %{?_smp_mflags} and you'll need to figure out how to get them installed properly, since make install in the doc directory doesn't seem to do anything for me. It's probably just a matter of putting the doc/html directory somewhere.
@jason Yes, you are very right. Thanks. I was just concerned why was it like that & never though about a way around. Updated: SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/liburiparser.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/liburiparser-0.7.1-2.fc9.src.rpm
Unfortunately this doesn't build because the documentation has additional build dependencies. I think you need doxygen and graphviz.
Updated: SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/liburiparser.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/liburiparser-0.7.1-3.fc9.src.rpm
First of all, why do you name this srpm as liburiparser instead of using uriparser which you say is the project name?
I just though about keeping consistency with ubuntu package. what is correct i n your view ? to better use tarball/project name. - Naming guidelines.
No. Please use debian/ubuntu naming way. Debian packages use many lib-foo names which Fedora does not use. Use upstream tarball names as much as possible.
(In reply to comment #9) > No. Please use debian/ubuntu naming way. I meant "Please don't use debian/ubuntu naming way", sorry...
okay - Will update soon. Thanks
SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.src.rpm SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/uriparser.spec Build successfully on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=807202 rpmlint output: clean rpmlint uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings rpmlint uriparser-devel-0.7.1-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint uriparser-debuginfo-0.7.1-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
For 0.7.1-4: * Group - Usually "Group" tag for the main package of this type is "System Environment/Libraries" (and -devel subpackage has "Development/Libraries") ! %setup - "-n %{name}-%{version}" is redundant as the default of %setup directory is this. * autotools call -------------------------------------------- 419 + cd doc ...... 443 config.status: creating Makefile 444 + make -j8 445 cd . && /bin/sh /builddir/build/BUILD/uriparser-0.7.1/missing --run aclocal-1.10 446 /builddir/build/BUILD/uriparser-0.7.1/missing: line 54: aclocal-1.10: command not found 447 WARNING: `aclocal-1.10' is missing on your system. You should only need it if 448 you modified `acinclude.m4' or `configure.in'. You might want 449 to install the `Automake' and `Perl' packages. Grab them from 450 any GNU archive site. 451 cd . && /bin/sh /builddir/build/BUILD/uriparser-0.7.1/missing --run autoconf ...... -------------------------------------------- - Automated autotool calls after configure is not desired. Usually timestamps on some files (aclocal.m4 and so on) are wrong. You can avoid this by "touch"ing some files. * Timestamp - Please consider to use -------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" -------------------------------------------- to keep timestamps on installed files as much as possible. This method usually works for recent autotool based Makefiles. * Documents install -------------------------------------------- # doc folder make install does nothing install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/html/ install -p -m 0644 doc/html/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/html/ -------------------------------------------- - Well, this does not do anything (and can be removed completely) ... Actually in -devel package the directory %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/html/ does not exist. This is because of %doc invocation. As build.log shows what %doc actually does (when the list in %doc does not begin with /) is: -------------------------------------------- 663 Processing files: uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10 664 Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.hz0MmE 665 + umask 022 666 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD 667 + cd uriparser-0.7.1 668 + DOCDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.i386/usr/share/doc/uriparser-0.7.1 669 + export DOCDIR 670 + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.i386/usr/share/doc/uriparser-0.7.1 671 + /bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.i386/usr/share/doc/uriparser-0.7.1 672 + cp -pr THANKS AUTHORS COPYING /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.i386/usr/share/doc/uripars er-0.7.1 673 + exit 0 -------------------------------------------- See the line 670. %doc once removes all files under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/. * Documents - Please consider to add the following file to %doc. -------------------------------------------- ChangeLog --------------------------------------------
- fixed group, removed redundant args for %%setup - included ChangeLog, fixed html folder path in %%files - fixed automated autotool calls after configure SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/uriparser.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/uriparser-0.7.1-5.fc10.src.rpm
Well, it is up to you, however personally I prefer to use "%doc THANKS" and remove all lines like "install -p -m 0644 doc/html/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/html/" or so because - It is simpler - Usually -devel subpackage uses %{_docdir}/%{name}-devel-%{version} - And it is very often that using %_docdir/..... files entry will cause directory ownership mistakes (please check your spec file), just as Michael Schwendt wrote: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg00381.html
I agree with you, it is always better to use %doc and avoid other movement of files as much as possible. Thanks, SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/uriparser.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc10.src.rpm
Okay. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This package (uriparser) is APPROVED by mtasaka ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: uriparser Short Description: URI parsing library - RFC 3986 Owners: rakesh Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: rakesh Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc9
uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc8
uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.