Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st-0.1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: A simple virtual terminal emulator for X which sucks less.
- rpmlint OK - package must be named according to Guidelines OK - spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK - license field must match actual license OK - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK - sources must match the upstream source OK - package MUST successfully compile and build OK - architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK - build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK - handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK - shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK - packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK - package must own all directories that it creates OK - permissions on files must be set properly OK - package must consistently use macros OK - package must contain code, or permissable content OK - large documentation must go in a -doc OK - %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK - header files must be in a -devel package OK - static libraries must be in a -static package OK - library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK - devel package usually require base package OK - packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: st Short Description: A simple terminal implementation for X Owners: psabata Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC:
> - packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK Erm, really? How did you actually check? I thought /usr/bin/st might be conflicting and indeed: repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/st shows that it is (openstack-swift provides that file already). Arguably this is an issue in openstack-swift, but at this point it's no safe bet that any two-letter command is non-conflicting. Please work this out and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag when that's been done.
Marcela, thanks for the review. Jason, thanks for noticing this. I've contacted openstack-swift owner. We'll see what could be done here.
Hi Petr: Let me ping some of the upstream OpenStack-swift folks and get their input. I'll try and do that today. I just reparsed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts#Conflicting_Files and that looks remarkably bleak. It appears from looking at version control that st pre-dates at least the open sourcing of swift, though I don't know what the reaction will be regardless. Thanks, David
(In reply to comment #5) > Hi Petr: > > Let me ping some of the upstream OpenStack-swift folks and get their input. > I'll try and do that today. > > I just reparsed: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts#Conflicting_Files > > and that looks remarkably bleak. It appears from looking at version control > that st pre-dates at least the open sourcing of swift, though I don't know what > the reaction will be regardless. > > Thanks, > > David Thank you! If that won't go well, we'll have to stick with 'Conflicts'.
So long story short Petr, Silas Sewell and I have exchanged a few emails, and I think from both Silas and I our POV is: * hacking openstack-swift or st to have a different binary results in documentation not working, and fedora specific 'problems' * st and openstack-swift are not very likely to both want to be on a single system at once. So I think the conflicts idea works at least from the openstack-swift perspective. My current plan wrt openstack-swift is to introduce this conflicts with openstack-swift 1.3.0, which may be a bit, there are some additional as-of-yet-unpackaged dependencies that need to be introduced to Fedora, so it won't be immediate, but certainly soon, though adding the conflicts to st should resolve the immediate issue I believe. Thoughts, comments?? flames??
(In reply to comment #7) > So long story short Petr, Silas Sewell and I have exchanged a few emails, and I > think from both Silas and I our POV is: > > * hacking openstack-swift or st to have a different binary results in > documentation not working, and fedora specific 'problems' > > * st and openstack-swift are not very likely to both want to be on a single > system at once. > > So I think the conflicts idea works at least from the openstack-swift > perspective. > > My current plan wrt openstack-swift is to introduce this conflicts with > openstack-swift 1.3.0, which may be a bit, there are some additional > as-of-yet-unpackaged dependencies that need to be introduced to Fedora, so it > won't be immediate, but certainly soon, though adding the conflicts to st > should resolve the immediate issue I believe. > > Thoughts, comments?? flames?? Thank you both! As I see it, openstack-swift upstream don't want to change the binary name 'just because'. Well, we have to (or should) respect their decision. I'm okay with mutual confict, just wanted some cleaner solution. -- Updated spec and SRPM: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st.spec http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/packages/st/st-0.1.1-2.fc14.src.rpm -- --- a/st.spec +++ b/st.spec @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ BuildRequires: libX11-devel BuildRequires: ncurses BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils Requires: terminus-fonts +# /usr/bin/st, rhbz#693363 +Conflicts: openstack-swift %description A simple virtual terminal emulator for X which sucks less. @@ -44,5 +46,8 @@ desktop-file-install --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications %{SOURCE1 %{_datadir}/applications %changelog +* Mon May 23 2011 Petr Sabata <psabata> - 0.1.1-2 +- We have a conflict with openstack-swift (#693363) + * Mon Apr 4 2011 Petr Sabata <psabata> - 0.1.1-1 - Initial import
Conflicts should solve it, approved.
Thanks, Marcela. Setting fedora-cvs? flag again...
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks, Jason.
st-0.1.1-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/st-0.1.1-2.fc14
st-0.1.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/st-0.1.1-2.fc15
st-0.1.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository.
st-0.1.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
st-0.1.1-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.