Created attachment 334023 [details] Proposed SPEC file for gnustep-make-2.0.8 I will notify you, that the release 2.0.8 of gnustep-make is available. I have create a SPEC file to build this release. This SPEC file create a version which is usable for x86_64 systems. Additionally, the ddebuginfo issue (BZ #483358) will be solved. It may be nice, if you can publish this release asap, because the other gnustep releated reviews submitted by me are blocked.
Created attachment 335029 [details] Diff to existing 2.0.6 specfile Turned new spec file into a diff so the changes are easy to see. I've changed two things: - reverted make -i -C Documentation to make -C Documentation - remove empty %else from the documentation installation We should probably split off the larger spec files into a -doc subpackage rather than putting all in the main package's documentation directory, otherwise it's a large overhead every time someone needs gnustep-make just to build other GNUstep components.
Created attachment 335030 [details] Updated patch with separate -doc subpackage Looks like gnustep-make does not have an open ACL, so even though I'm in provenpackager, I cannot commit this. Applying for co-maintainership
Are you sure, that you are in the provenpackager group anymore. I was kick out of this group and FESCO was not very helpful to get this status again. As second, I have request comaintainership too, but waiting several weeks for approvement.
(In reply to comment #3) > Are you sure, that you are in the provenpackager group anymore. I was kick out > of this group and FESCO was not very helpful to get this status again. As > second, I have request comaintainership too, but waiting several weeks for > approvement. Sorry, I have forgotten to tell you, that pkgdb shows, that it should be possible to commit as provenpackages, so I'm wondering why you can't do it?
(just got back from spring break) The steering committee changed the way provenpackager membership is handed out -- I initially gained the membership due to the number of packages I maintain, but now they've reinitialized it to sponsors + people who manually apply. I'm now a sponsor so I can commit, but it'd still be nice to get co-maintainership -- in fact, get all the active GNUstep maintainers co-maintain the core packages; that way, we all get notified when a breakage occurs and can fix things. Axel, could you process the pkgdb requests? Thanks.
2.0.8 built: F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257071 F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257543 F-9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257551
Adding 'FutureFeature' keyword to avoid rawhide rebase.
The changes introduced in this spec remove the distinction between the Local and System domains anymore. This was mentioned in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475852 Commenting out the following line in the spec file reverts the behaviour back to the upstream one: sed -i -e 's,/local,,' FilesystemLayouts/fhs-system Can that change be reverted please?
Any news on this getting committed. Anyhow I have noticed further issues with this spec. GNUstep software build with this gnustep-make will try to install their documentation under /usr/share/doc/gnustep-make-doc-2.0.8. This is because /etc/GNUstep.conf sets GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_DOC to that path. This is the spec file line that creates the problem: perl -pi -e"s,/share/GNUstep/Documentation,`echo %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-doc-%{version} | sed -e's,^/usr,,'`," \ FilesystemLayouts/fhs-system Unfortunately, the rest of the spec file depends on it so we cannot just comment it out.
Sorry about the noise. I somehow missed that fact that version 2.0.8-2 was already in f11. Shouldn't this ticket be closed? I will open a new ticket about the issues I encountered.
I'm closing this; there's already a bug ticket open for 2.2.0. We could continue the discussion there. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 523018 ***