Spec URL: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec SRPM URL: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Artha is a thesaurus that works completely off-line and is based on WordNet. Key features include hot key lookup, suggestions for incorrectly typed words, synonyms, antonyms and other similar words and notifications. Details can be found at http://artha.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Home .
Some quick notes: * Unneeded macros - You don't have to define %name, %version macros * Source - Source tarball included in your srpm does not match with what I could download fromt the URL written as Source0: --------------------------------------------------------- 165485 2009-05-17 14:22 artha-0.9.1.tar.gz 165078 2009-11-28 02:13 artha-0.9.1-1.fc11.src/artha-0.9.1.tar.gz --------------------------------------------------------- * License - Should be "GPLv2+" * BuildArch - "i386" is wrong because F-11 uses i586 and F-12 uses i686. And this BuildArch is completely unneeded (because this builds on ix86/x86_64/ppc/ppc64) * BuildRequires - "BR: autoconf, automake, libtool" don't seem to be needed because autotools are not called during build. - Please try to remove redundant BR. For example: * "gtk2-devel" always requires "glib2-devel", so "BR: glib2-devel" is redundant. * Note that "libnotify-devel" requires "glib2-devel" "gtk2-devel" "dbus-glib-devel" so these 3 BRs can be removed, however I don't object to keep writing "BR: gtk2-devel dbus-glib-devel" if you want. * Parallel make - Support parallel make if possible: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make * 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 Makefiles generated by recent autotools. * %defattr - Now we usually use %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Directory ownership issue - The directory %{_datadir}/artha/ itself is not owned by any packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes
One more issue: * %buildroot vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Please choose one and don't use both: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- As Mamoru Tasaka said MD5sum mismatch: The md5sum of source package included in src rpm mismatches with the package downloaded from source0 url c3fc06df65b4aea21fbf4e26a6d57f19 <- md5sum of package downloaded from upstream e5a756ca002a37adc85c4c4f12f6ba9c <- md5sum of package in src rpm Any modification to upstream source should be added as a patch. - If its your first package and you need SPONSOR please update BLOCKS field to FE-NEEDSPONSOR Please check http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/glv/howtos/packaging-rpm-workflow.html - Consider posting links to successful koji builds
There is an unwanted executable permission given to TODO file. How do I create a patch for it, rpmlint is giving error for it, should I leave it out from the %doc section.
(In reply to comment #4) > There is an unwanted executable permission given to TODO file. Just use chmod at %prep.
I have made the necessary changes. Here are the updated files. SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-2.fc11.src.rpm The project artha is licensed under GPLv2, will it be okay to change it GPLv2+ ?
(In reply to comment #6) > I have made the necessary changes. Here are the updated files. > The project artha is licensed under GPLv2, will it be okay to change it GPLv2+ > ? No.
Are all other problems fixed, so that I can make a new rpm. Is there a check list for you for errors, so that next time I can refer to it, before submitting a review request.
(In reply to comment #8) > Are all other problems fixed, so that I can make a new rpm. Is there a check > list for you for errors, so that next time I can refer to it, before submitting > a review request. You can read the review guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines and check whether your spec file and package meets the requirement in it. When i tried to built the package i get build errors, am i doing something wrong? checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc... i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables See `config.log' for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.K4pfcC (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.K4pfcC (%build)
(In reply to comment #6) > SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec > SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-2.fc11.src.rpm Connection timed out... By the way http://artha.sourceforge.org/ returns "Server not found"...
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #6) > > SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec > > SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-2.fc11.src.rpm > > Connection timed out... Sorry there is a power outrage over here. I am trying to locate some other possible location to upload it. Suggest if you have any place to do it. Only web based uploads possible. > By the way http://artha.sourceforge.org/ returns "Server not found"... It was a mistake, the url is http://artha.sourceforge.net/. Changed it in the spec. Should I revert the license to GPLv2 or should i keep GPLv2+.
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec > > > SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-2.fc11.src.rpm > > > > Connection timed out... > > Sorry there is a power outrage over here. I am trying to locate some other > possible location to upload it. Suggest if you have any place to do it. Only > web based uploads possible. Ah, okay. Now I am sponsoring you. Please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedorapeople.org and use fedorapeople.org site. > Should I revert the license to GPLv2 or should i keep GPLv2+. Judging from the source code, the license should be GPLv2+.
Created attachment 376089 [details] build log rpmbuild --rebuild src.rpm was failed, i have attached the config.log for detailed information
(In reply to comment #13) > Created an attachment (id=376089) [details] > build log > > rpmbuild --rebuild src.rpm was failed, i have attached the config.log for > detailed information ============================================================ configure:2264: checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc configure:2280: found /usr/local/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc configure:2291: result: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc configure:2569: checking for C compiler version configure:2576: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc --version >&5 i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 4.2.4 configure:2649: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables conftest.c >&5 conftest.c:1: error: bad value (atom) for -mtune= switch ============================================================ This message shows that you are using gcc built/installed by yourself and not using gcc provided by Fedora's rpm.
(In reply to comment #14) > > This message shows that you are using gcc built/installed by yourself > and not using gcc provided by Fedora's rpm. But when i compiled the source (artha)(not src rpm) it used Fedora-rpm provided gcc, only rpmbuild --rebuild is using custom gcc , why? how to fix this?
Thank you for providing me the space. SPEC: http://roshansingh.fedorapeople.org/artha/artha.spec SRPM: http://roshansingh.fedorapeople.org/artha/artha-0.9.1-3.fc11.src.rpm I have kept the License as GPLv2+. Hope this fixes all the problems.
(In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > > > This message shows that you are using gcc built/installed by yourself > > and not using gcc provided by Fedora's rpm. > > But when i compiled the source (artha)(not src rpm) it used Fedora-rpm provided > gcc, only rpmbuild --rebuild is using custom gcc , why? how to fix this? I guess it is no and you used your custom gcc also for compiling artha tarball, only that it didn't fail perhaps because you didn't specify CFLAGS. Fedora sets CFLAGS determined in redhat-rpm-config rpm (you can see this by $ rpm --eval %optflags, and please check what %configure does by $ rpm --eval %configure). On F-12 it contains "-mtune=atom" on i686 and your custom gcc cannot recognize it. You can use "mock" to rpmbuild srpm "cleanly".
What does CFLAGS do ? I dont have any idea about it. I just know that it sets up build environment but what parameters and how.
(In reply to comment #18) > What does CFLAGS do ? I dont have any idea about it. I just know that it sets > up build environment but what parameters and how. For each CFLAGS parameters, please check $ man gcc. Now your spec/srpm is okay. ------------------------------------------------------------- This package (artha) is APPROVED by mtasaka -------------------------------------------------------------
ping? (Please write CVS request)
(In reply to comment #20) > ping? (Please write CVS request) Should I add you to the 'InitialCC' as i dont have any other person to CC it to ?
(In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #20) > > ping? (Please write CVS request) > > Should I add you to the 'InitialCC' as i dont have any other person to CC it to > ? You don't have to add me as InitialCC member.
Your package has been sponsored ,now you need to set the fedora-cvs flag to "?" . please read http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/glv/howtos/packaging-rpm-workflow.html#_make_cvs_request
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: artha Short Description: A handy thesaurus based on WordNet Owners: roshansingh Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5
cvs done.
I have found out that wordnet is not in EPEL-5 as told on IRC. Then I tried finding it at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8574, where it is not listed. So it is not possible to build artha for EL-5, what should I do now.
Well, * First rebuild this package on F-13(devel)/F-12/11 * For F-12/11, submit push requests on bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ When these are done, I will close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. For EL-5, rebuilding this package for EL-5 is not mandatory. If you want to import this package into EL-5, contact wordnet maintainer (or file a bug against wordnet).
(In reply to comment #27) > Well, > > * First rebuild this package on F-13(devel)/F-12/11 > * For F-12/11, submit push requests on bodhi: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ > > When these are done, I will close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. > > For EL-5, rebuilding this package for EL-5 is not mandatory. > If you want to import this package into EL-5, contact wordnet > maintainer (or file a bug against wordnet). Ok, i have built artha for devel, F-11, and F-12 successfully. I will make request in bodhi now.
artha-0.9.1-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/artha-0.9.1-3.fc11
artha-0.9.1-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/artha-0.9.1-3.fc12
artha-0.9.1-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update artha'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-13301
artha-0.9.1-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update artha'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-13383
Closing.
artha-0.9.1-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
artha-0.9.1-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.