Bug 579452 - Please package po-mode (spec file patch attached)
Summary: Please package po-mode (spec file patch attached)
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gettext
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jens Petersen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 142632 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-04-05 09:15 UTC by Jonathan Underwood
Modified: 2010-06-15 07:27 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-06-15 07:27:22 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Patch to spec file to create emacs-gettext subpackages (3.11 KB, patch)
2010-04-05 09:15 UTC, Jonathan Underwood
no flags Details | Diff
Patch against old version of po-mode.el (455 bytes, patch)
2010-04-25 03:55 UTC, Jonathan Underwood
no flags Details | Diff

Description Jonathan Underwood 2010-04-05 09:15:19 UTC
Created attachment 404466 [details]
Patch to spec file to create emacs-gettext subpackages

Description of problem:
Currently the Emacs major mode for editing po files is bundled into the Emacs package, forked at some point from the gettext tarball. Really, the gettext package should have subpackages for the emacs components and we should stop including po-mode in the Emacs package, since gettext is the upstream for po-mode. The attached patch (against the devel branch) does this. Please could you apply this? TIA.

Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2010-04-23 01:08:15 UTC
*** Bug 142632 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jens Petersen 2010-04-23 07:36:59 UTC
Thanks for the patch.  Applying in next gettext build for f14.

Probably a bit late for f13? (but if you think we could still do there I guess)

Comment 3 Jens Petersen 2010-04-23 07:54:21 UTC
Just checking - what is the convention for naming emacs packages?
Should it be emacs-gettext or emacs-po-mode?

emacs-gettext seems a bit confusing to me but if that is
the conventional naming then so be it.

Comment 4 Jonathan Underwood 2010-04-23 09:40:00 UTC
Not sure about F-13 - if we decide to do it, we'll also have to push an update to the main emacs package which removes po-mode from there. This close to release, it might raise eyebrows.


Regarding naming, emacs-gettext is what the guidelines would indicate - see:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs


However, I had the same worry you had when working up the patch. Perhaps the thing to do would be to call it emacs-gettext, and add a virtual provides for emacs-po-mode.

Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2010-04-24 05:55:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Regarding naming, emacs-gettext is what the guidelines would indicate - see:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs

Ok, I believe you - I have been away from fedora elisp packaging
for quite while.  Though I couldn't see an explicit
statement on it on that page...

> However, I had the same worry you had when working up the patch. Perhaps the
> thing to do would be to call it emacs-gettext, and add a virtual provides for
> emacs-po-mode.    

Yeah good idea - I will do that then.

Should be all done in gettext-0.17-17.fc14:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2134922

Should I reassign this to emacs, clone this bug, or is there one open?

Comment 6 Jonathan Underwood 2010-04-25 03:55:11 UTC
Thanks Jens·

Just pushed a build of emacs for devel with po-mode files removed: 

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2135915

I noticed that there was an old patch included in the emacs package for the old version of po-mode.el that was included in the emacs package. As far as I can see, that's not needed anymore with the upstream po-mode, but I could be wrong. Attaching the patch for you to look at.

Comment 7 Jonathan Underwood 2010-04-25 03:55:55 UTC
Created attachment 408914 [details]
Patch against old version of po-mode.el

Comment 8 Jens Petersen 2010-06-15 07:27:22 UTC
Thanks Jonathan - I retested bug 71264 and indeed it seems fine still in current rawhide.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.