Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/9base/9base.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/9base/9base-6-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This is a port of various original Plan 9 tools for Unix, based on plan9port.
See the devel list discussion for more info: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-May/151626.html
New release, using %{_bindir}/plan9 as %{_p9bin} Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/9base/9base.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/9base/9base-6-2.fc15.src.rpm
Ah...Seems handling such software is a painful work. Do you still want to get it into Fedora?
I'd like to but it's been a long time. The guidelines have changed a bit in the past two years. I'll have to check the package again and maybe submit a new release. Are you interesting in reviewing this?
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #4) > I'd like to but it's been a long time. The guidelines have changed a bit in > the past two years. I'll have to check the package again and maybe submit a > new release. > > Are you interesting in reviewing this? Well, I'm also curious about these files' name... How to solve it now?
I think currently it's not easy to solve the conflicts. Close it now. When we can come up with a better idea of how to name the bins of 9base, please reopen.
Please, do not just close bugs like this. There's no reason for that.
There is an insecure temporary file flaw in the version of rc provided by 9base: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737206 Noting here so it can be fixed before 9base is released
Thanks for the heads up!
From the discussion linked in comment #1, it seems the least controversial way would be to rename all commands to have some suffix (like "plan9-")? It is about 50 commands, so it won't look so nice, but it would follow FHS without exceptions... Do I interpret it correctly? :-) It is possible to add links (without prefix) to /usr/lib/plan9/. This would allow users to use 9base directly by modifying PATH, and this would be even compatible with Debian. 9base is not a library, so there shouldn't be a problem with multilib IMHO.
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #10) > From the discussion linked in comment #1, it seems the least controversial > way would be to rename all commands to have some suffix (like "plan9-")? It > is about 50 commands, so it won't look so nice, but it would follow FHS > without exceptions... Do I interpret it correctly? :-) > > It is possible to add links (without prefix) to /usr/lib/plan9/. This would > allow users to use 9base directly by modifying PATH, and this would be even > compatible with Debian. 9base is not a library, so there shouldn't be a > problem with multilib IMHO. Or use man:alternatives(8) like java(not sure if it works, I haven't tested yet). However, what about these manpages? I think if we want to package some softwares which are identical with basic commands(coreutils), maybe a better solution is to treat DESTDIR as %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$(PROJ) instead of %{buildroot} itself. Symlink actually is not a problem, but we may have better solution like alternatives command. If some packages have dependency on coreutils already, we should use a virtual package to satisfy, and virtual package can be set default as coreutils but can be switched to plan9 also BSD's, albeit conflicted with each other. Plus, plan9port(http://swtch.com/plan9port/) is also worthwhile for packaging, how to deal with that?
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #11) > > Or use man:alternatives(8) like java(not sure if it works, I haven't tested > yet). > This is already covered in the discussion from the comment #1. There are serious reason against it - plan9 not compatible with coreutils, and not good idea to introduce alternatives for such package anyway.
So I've finally gone through the old thread again. I'm in favour putting everything in %{_libdir}/9base, with 9base-* prefixes in %{_bindir} and %{_mandir}. I'll submit a new package with those changes, hopefully soon.
http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/9base/9base.spec http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/9base/9base-6-3.fc20.src.rpm A new attempt :)
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Well, it's been nine years. I'm closing this.