Spec URL: http://git.ergo-project.org/?p=kolab-fedora.git;a=blob_plain;f=f12/custom-f12-buildsys/SPECS/pbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.ergo-project.org/packages/pbuilder/0.196/1.fc12.buildsys/src/pbuilder-0.196-1.fc12.buildsys.src.rpm Description: pbuilder constructs a chroot system, and builds a package inside the chroot. It is an ideal system to use to check that a package has correct build-dependencies. It uses apt extensively, and a local mirror, or a fast connection to a Debian mirror is ideal, but not necessary. "pbuilder create" uses debootstrap to create a chroot image. "pbuilder update" updates the image to the current state of testing/unstable/whatever "pbuilder build" takes a *.dsc file and builds a binary in the chroot image
New SPEC: http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/pbuilder/plain/pbuilder.spec?h=f13/master New SRPM: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/fedora/apt-utils/f13/SRPMS/pbuilder-0.196-1.fc13.src.rpm
REVIEW FOR pbuilder-0.196-1.fc13.src.rpm FIX - MUST: pbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chroot -> cheroot, ch root, ch-root pbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debootstrap -> de bootstrap, de-bootstrap, bootstrapped pbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc pbuilder.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C "pbuilder update" updates the image to the current state of testing/unstable/whatever pbuilder.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/B92test-pkg pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuildd/hookdir/A10dpkg-l.sh pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuilder-test/002_libfile pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/rebuild/buildall pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/D90chrootmemo pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/F90chrootmemo pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/execute_paramtest.sh pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuilder-test/003_makecheck pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuilder-test/000_prepinstall pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuildd/buildd.sh pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/B90list-missing pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/D80no-man-db-rebuild pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/D10tmp pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/D20addnonfree pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuilder-test/004_ldd pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/workaround/E50-initscripts-2.86.ds1-7.workaround.sh pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/execute_installtest.sh pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/workaround/G50-initscripts-2.86.ds1-11-cdebootstrap0.3.9.sh pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/C10shell pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/B90lintian pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/pbuilder-test/001_apprun pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/lvmpbuilder/lvmbuilder pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/rebuild/getlist pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/B91debc pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/B91dpkg-i pbuilder.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/pbuilder-0.196/examples/C11screen pbuilder.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary debuild-pbuilder pbuilder.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pdebuild-user-mode-linux pbuilder.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pdebuild pbuilder.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pbuilder-user-mode-linux pbuilder.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pbuilder pbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chroot -> cheroot, ch root, ch-root pbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debootstrap -> de bootstrap, de-bootstrap, bootstrapped pbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, sc, desc pbuilder.src: E: description-line-too-long C "pbuilder update" updates the image to the current state of testing/unstable/whatever pbuilder.src:70: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} pbuilder.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/p/pbuilder/pbuilder_0.196.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 40 warnings. Can be ignored: spelling-error, no-manual-page-for-binary, only-non-binary-in-usr-lib, hardcoded-library-path Need to be fixed: description-line-too-long, spurious-executable-perm OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines FIX - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license: GPL is no valid license FIX - MUST: license file included in %doc: no license included OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible TBD - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: FIX - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin N/A - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. Other items: Fix - not latest stable version, upstream is already at 0.199 OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete OK - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. TODO items: - please update the package to 0.199 so I can check the TBD points. - fix the FIX items - use the full allowed 80 characters for the lines in description, but not more - %doc %{_datadir}/doc -> %{_docdir} - include docs: AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, README, THANKS - build and include the mapages (pbuilder-uml.conf refers to man 5 pbuilder-uml.conf) - Create and own /var/cache/pbuilder/pbuildd/ - Missing Requires: sudo - usr/bin/pdebuild requires dpkg-parsechangelog, dpkg-architecture and dpkg-buildpackage, thus we need dpkg-devel instead of just dpkg - usr/bin/debuild-pbuilder requires usr/bin/debuild from Debian's devscripts package
hi, Christoph Wickert , new debhelper is build in rawhide , and soon we will build in F19 and next probably in F18 . this seems to be the last package on group of deb building tools ... we have new builds of alien, debhelper, po-debconf and dh-make since last comment have almost 3 years I don't what should I do ? do you review this package ?
fix typo I don't know what todo ? do you review this package ? this packages is Assigned To: Christoph Wickert
As the submitter did not respond I think it's better to take his package, fix the issues I found during the review, and submit this new package in a new review request. Then close this bug as duplicate of the new one. Note: Both Jeroen and I are busy, I canno promise I review anything. So if you have another reviewer, that's fine, go ahead.
Ok, thanks for reply , I will wait for debhelper land in F19 , I estimate it takes a maximum of eight days. We already have debhelper-9.20120909-1.fc20 in rawhide, so we already can complete the review and build in rawhide. If after debhelper land in F19 , if no reply from Jeroen, I will consider unresponsive, ok ? Thanks,
Sure. During review you only need to care about rawhide, no need to have other releases delay anything.
Hmmm... I already prepared something, but wasn't aware that Sergio is trying to become a maintainer. Anyway... Here it is (updated to the version used in Debian/wheezy): Spec URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/pbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://oron.fedorapeople.org/deb-package/pbuilder-0.213-1.fc20.src.rpm Two issues: * All internal scripts are in /usr/lib/pbuilder: - rpmlint does not like it (rightfully) - Changing it to /usr/share/pbuilder is very invasive (both in scripts and in man-pages) - Debian have been using it for years, so the chance of pushing this change upstream are pretty nil. - Ideas? * For this pbuilder to actually be usefull: - We need /usr/share/keyrings/debian-archive-keyring.gpg (from debian-archive-keyring) - This is really a debootstrap issue. After manually copying the debian keyring, the new pbuilder is self-hosting (i.e: I built a .deb of pbuilder using the proposed Fedora pbuilder)
(In reply to Oron Peled from comment #8) > but wasn't aware that Sergio is trying > to become a maintainer. Anyway... I'm not trying became maintainer, I will became a maintainer or a reviewer if nobody do it, pbuilder is part of the group "debian tools" that we are packaging. I know that pbuilder is the equivalent of mock in Fedora, but I'm not aware how to use it, so I prefer not be the maintainer and also pass as reviewer, but if everyone looks unresponsive, I'd like finish up the group of packages "debian tools" . Best regards
* Maintainership: - In reply to comment #9 -- OK, than I'll be the maintainer since I use these tools daily (on Debian systems). [btw: I have no problem maintaining/co-maintaining other parts of our Debian build stack if someone need help] - In reply to comment #5 -- As suggested I'll open a new RR and mark this as duplicate. - But first I want to apply all remarks from comment #2 (some of them still need to be fixed) -- I hope to do this and open the new ticket in a few days (oh, weekend, dear weekend...) * We still need to think what to do with the debian keyring: - It doesn't strictly block pbuilder, but I think we want to improve the security and convenience of end users (developers), but providing a secure and easy path to install it in Fedora. - Which looks like a new RR -- debian-archive-keyring - Alternatives?
(In reply to Oron Peled from comment #10) > * Maintainership: > - In reply to comment #9 -- OK, than I'll be the maintainer since I use > these tools daily (on Debian systems). > [btw: I have no problem maintaining/co-maintaining other parts of our > Debian build stack if someone need help] fine by me > - In reply to comment #5 -- As suggested I'll open a new RR and mark this > as duplicate. > > - But first I want to apply all remarks from comment #2 (some of them still > need to be fixed) -- I hope to do this and open the new ticket in a > few days (oh, weekend, dear weekend...) fine by me I offer me, to be the reviewer So I think you may open a new Review Request
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 969718 ***
(In reply to Christoph Wickert from comment #5) > As the submitter did not respond I think it's better to take his package, > fix the issues I found during the review, and submit this new package in a > new review request. Then close this bug as duplicate of the new one. Done > Note: Both Jeroen and I are busy, I canno promise I review anything. So if > you have another reviewer, that's fine, go ahead. Hi Christoph Wickert, I'd like that you give some help on this review, I can take care of logistic things like change flags etc , but yours contribution is valuable see you in bug #969718 Thanks,