Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/metapost-metauml/metapost-metauml.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/metapost-metauml/metapost-metauml-0.2.5-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: MetaUML is a MetaPost library for typesetting UML diagrams. Class, activity, use case, state machine, and package diagrams are supported.
rpmlint outputs lots of errors about the mp files not having a shebang line. Should I ignore them since (afaik) MetaPost doesn't use shebang lines?
This fails to build for me: RPM build errors: File must begin with "/": %{_texmf_main}/metapost/metauml So the _texmf_main macro is undefined. Did you build this in mock or koji? This could be a rawhide issue, although I'm thinking more along the lines of a missing build dependency. Adding BuildRequires: texlive gets things working for me. The rpmlint complaints come from the fact that you have an executable text file with no #! line to tell what shell they should be run in. Are you sure those files need to be executable? What could possibly execute them?
(In reply to comment #2) > This fails to build for me: > > RPM build errors: > File must begin with "/": %{_texmf_main}/metapost/metauml > > So the _texmf_main macro is undefined. Did you build this in mock or koji? > This could be a rawhide issue, although I'm thinking more along the lines of a > missing build dependency. Adding BuildRequires: texlive gets things working > for me. I guess got a little ahead of myself when I cleaned up the BuildRequires (figured that since it was just copying files, nothing was needed; forgot about the macro) > The rpmlint complaints come from the fact that you have an executable text file > with no #! line to tell what shell they should be run in. Are you sure those > files need to be executable? What could possibly execute them? They shouldn't be. I tried building with chmod -x *.mp on that directory, but rpmlint still came back with errors about shebang lines. Bug in rpmlint perhaps? The project hasn't had development on it for a long time (2006 or so), but the developer did put a note on the site that he plans on working on it again (although this was in August).
Fixed it up using install -m 644 and also using sed to replace \r in line endings. New spec: http://benboeckel.net/metapost-metauml/metapost-metauml.spec New SRPM: http://benboeckel.net/metapost-metauml/metapost-metauml-0.2.5-2.fc10.src.rpm
Yep, builds clean and rpmlint is silent. Why do you have the odd "?modtime=*" bits at the end of the URLs? They don't seem to be needed, and if I use: Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz Source1: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf then everything downloads and compares properly. I note that the URL: tag leads to an error page. Is there any other web page which could be referenced? We don't really want to direct interested people to a page which doesn't exist. We have no specific naming guidelines for metapost packages, but prefixing with "metapost-" seems reasonable to me. So my only concerns relate to the URLs. I guess if there's no live upstream then it would be better not to include a URL: tag at all; you can always include one later if upstream does come back up. And it would really be good to use regular SourceN: URLs if at all possible. (If for no other reason than to let the automated tests run over them checking for mismatches or download problems.) * source files match upstream. sha256sum: ae43c06977dbd9ae579bdc04cdc809af4cd81a733f3f7282145ca34a4da04052 metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz 6e3b197c229563ada8370063944f885def5beeea1600b8bf4891554f88343ca8 metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: metapost-metauml = 0.2.5-2.fc11 = texlive * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Whoops. The URL should be metauml.sourceforge.net. Too much meta ;) . Here's a spec/sRPM with those fixes: Spec: http://benboeckel.net/metapost-metauml/metapost-metauml.spec SRPM: http://benboeckel.net/metapost-metauml/metapost-metauml-0.2.5-3.fc10.src.rpm
Looks good, thanks. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: metapost-metauml Short Description: UML in LaTeX/MetaPost Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
cvs done.
I don't see it in CVS yet? hiccup?
Hum. Try now?
Ah, I see it now. Thanks.
This seems to have been pushed out to the release branches, so I see no reason why this ticket shouldn't be closed.