Bug 795696 - Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
Summary: Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: 16
Hardware: noarch
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-02-21 10:17 UTC by Simon A. Erat
Modified: 2012-07-05 19:39 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-07-05 19:39:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Simon A. Erat 2012-02-21 10:17:14 UTC
Its a script framework based upon bash and a directory structure to read libraries, templates or show a menu to the end user.
Its main purpose is to guide a user from a minimal installation (maybe from minimal-spin in future?) to a graphical user interface.
It does however, offer some more tools such as iso2usb, siggen, pwizer (kinda of leet speak converter) and others.

What is prepared so far:
 * http://sf.net/p/seasc (source code, in sub projects)
 * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/rpm.sc.template.spec 
 * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/changelog
 * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/sc-0.2.0.tar.gz (since its a script, there is no src rpm?)
 * http://sea.hostingsociety.com/sc-0.2.0-2.fc16.noarch.rpm

This is my first package, so i'm looking for a sponsor who's willing to guide an eager and willing person.

Thank you in advance and have a nice day.

Comment 1 Terje Røsten 2012-02-22 21:51:49 UTC
Some comments:

 - what GPL version is correct? 2, 2+, 3, 3+ or something else?

 - Prefix:     /usr/share/sc
   please don't do this, to easy to confuse with %{_prefix}
   define e.g %{schome} by 

   %global schome %{_datadir}/sc

 - keep line width < 78 chars

 - %defattr(-,root,root,0755) leave that to %defattr(-,root,root,-)
   and set correct perms on files in %install

 - %files is too complicated, with change above this is enough:
   
   %{schome}

 - sc-readme and changelog should be located in /usr/share/doc/sc-$version,
   use %doc macro for this.

 - write proper %changelog.

You might want to create FAS account and do a koji scratch build.

Any rpmlint output?

Comment 2 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-22 23:15:42 UTC
Thank you very much for this info!
Will apply them after a sleep, as its past midnight here.

I do have a FAS account (sea), but where do i get infos about a Koji build?
Is it anything diffrent than the 'standard' build of an rpm file?
If so, a direct link would be very welcome.

Some ending questions:
Do i place changelog and readme files in the folder /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/changelog?
Is the %{_datadir} refering to /usr/share ?
Is there anywhere a list of available (fixed) variables?

Comment 3 Terje Røsten 2012-02-23 09:10:46 UTC
koji intro:

 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji

Recommended reading.

the %doc macro will put files from source dir to

 /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/

add in %files:

%doc sc-README changelog


Variables:
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros

Comment 4 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-24 17:08:33 UTC
Thank you for the links, going to read them carefully this weekend.
As soon i have read those links, i'll know what rpmlint is, and will try to provide that info.

The line %doc file1 file2 resulted in an error that i have 2 files in one line, so i kept the old pattern in %files. In order to have it working.

I've updated the package info:
RPM: http://sf.net/p/seasc/files/seasc-0.2.0-3.fc16.noarch.rpm/download
SRC: http://sf.net/p/seasc/files/seasc-0.2.0.tar.gz/download
SPEC: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/seasc.spec
Changelog: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/changelog

Again, since its a bash script collection, there is nothing to compile, and no src.rpm is created.

Comment 6 Terje Røsten 2012-02-25 08:56:51 UTC
 - It's normal to have any %global on top.
 - %description still have to long lines
 - license field is not correct, see 
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
 - there is *always* a srpm, and in fact the most important package
   for a reviewer :-)
 - the %changelog is still empty...

 Have you seen this document: 
   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

Comment 7 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-25 12:45:46 UTC
User: mkrpm
rpmbuild -ba  --target noarch                   ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/seasc.spec 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
results in NO *.src.rpm, i think its because its a BASH collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So wheter you have a look at the unpackaged tarball, or at the rpm where its
extracted, you see the exact same code.
I have no idea why the BUILD ALL flag doesnt make a src.rpm, but its the way it
is!
See buildlog-0.2.0-4 for more details...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOG:  http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/buildlog-0.2.0-4
RPM:  http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0-4.fc16.noarch.rpm
SRC:  http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0.tar.gz
SPEC: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc.spec

Comment 8 Brendan Jones 2012-02-25 13:45:38 UTC
Drop the target parameter, BuildArch will take care of that and it should build tour src.rpm.

When you are using wildcards in your yum install you are also pulling in debuginfo packages? Not sure this is what you want

Comment 9 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-25 14:17:15 UTC
Ooops, just figured whie looking closer to the log (now i recall i had read that already, but forgotten about it)... the src.rpm is NOT in the RPMS dir, but in SRPMS...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SRC: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0-4.fc16.src.rpm
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 10 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-25 15:30:42 UTC
Thanks Brendon, it worked properly with (and without) the target argument.
The error cause were the user, me in this case :(

By the yum install, are you refering to ($scDir) ./system/lists ?
No, thats not my intention, to install debug info (-devel packages?) as well, only the packages for the (common) user.

The change from 'hardcoded' (variables in the scripts) packages to list files, was just on Feb 12 2012.
So those files are not 'done' just yet.

Comment 11 Brendan Jones 2012-02-25 17:42:27 UTC
I haven't run it but I noticed a yum install alsa* in there somewhere.

Comment 12 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-25 19:33:43 UTC
Right, found that place to be ./collection/set/snd.
Its a relict of previous to Feb 12.
Thanks for reminding me to delete it for further builds.

Comment 13 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-25 23:43:57 UTC
Ok, first steps with koji were funny, here's the result:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819177

Comment 14 Simon A. Erat 2012-02-26 02:56:13 UTC
I'm a little bit confused with the current rawhide situation, so i've built a base to be sure...
-----
for f in f16 f17 f18; do koji build --scratch $f /tmp/seasc-0.2.0-5.fc16.src.rpm ; done
-----
F16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819286
F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819301
F18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3819303
-----
Changelog: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/changelog
Specfile:  http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc.spec
Source:    http://sea.hostingsociety.com/devpak/seasc-0.2.0-5.fc16.src.rpm
-----
Anyone willing become my sponser?
I'm willing to co-maintain :)

Comment 15 Jason Tibbitts 2012-07-04 00:58:40 UTC
Spec and srpm links above are invalid.  Please clear the whiteboard field above if providing a package which can be reviewed.

Comment 16 Simon A. Erat 2012-07-05 10:26:32 UTC
How do i close this review request?
Due to a harddisk crash, i lost these data.
So i had to start all over again.


However, Jason has been very busy, thank you very much, and had a look at both requests, this (old) one and the new (current) one which is to be found at: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089


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