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 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 Fedora Account System Username: oron
This replace the old bug #591388 since the reporter has no time to finish it. What has been done: * All issues in the original BR were fixed * Added 'make check' * Added man pages * The source package now create two binary packages (just like the upstream package): - pbuilder - pbuilder-uml (run pbuilder inside a user-mode-linux) Open issues: * pbuilder-uml is not funcional yet -- should we remove it temporarily? * To actually create chroots for pbuilder, we need debian-archive-keyring: - This is actually needed for any secure debootstrap and not just pbuilder. - IMO we should package it in Fedora - Until then, people may grab it manually from Debian.
Forgot to mention: all previous dependencies are in rawhide+f19: - dh-make - po-debconf - debhelper (which depends on dpkg)
*** Bug 591388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
fedora-review -b 969718 relevant warnings: 1 - pbuilder-uml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux could be fix 2 - pbuilder.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib /usr/lib/pbuilder shouldn't be /usr/libexec/pbuilder ? like other package that I review with you %{_libdir} is /usr/lib in i386 and /usr/lib64 in x86_64 . 3 - pbuilder-uml #Requires: rootstrap (but missing in Fedora) we need add rootstrap to Fedora ? #Requires: user-mode-linux we need add rootstrap to Fedora ? 4 - Missing Requires: sudo ?
5 - usr/bin/debuild-pbuilder requires usr/bin/debuild from Debian's devscripts package. I don't find any /usr/bin/debuild seems is part of Debian devscripts Bug #920163 could have some interest, seems to me that we also need packaging devscripts .
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=deb&project=home%3Aheliochissini
Mario, do you want help on review ?
(in reply to comment #4) 1. The lower-case "linux" in the %description is part of the package name "user-mode-linux". It's probably better to leave as is instead of "user-mode-Linux" 2. The "/usr/lib/pbuilder": * Since it only contains scripts, it should have been in /usr/share/pbuilder (but that is already used by the package for other stuff) * Than, your suggestion of "/usr/libexec/pbuilder" is the most logical one. However.... * This path is embedded in 67 lines over 35 files: $ grep -r '/usr/lib/pbuilder' . | wc -l 67 $ grep -rl '/usr/lib/pbuilder' . | wc -l 35 * So I was thinking it would be better to leave it as is. What do you think? Should we ask for some "exception"? 3. pbuilder-uml: * The "user-mode-linux" is actually a special kernel variant which Fedora kernel team does not build. * So I was thinking about "commenting out" this sub-package for now. * I.e: get pbuilder without pbuilder-uml. 4. missing sudo -- indeed, fixed my spec (didn't upload yet)
(in reply to comment #5) * Yes, devscripts is also valuable in its own right. * I'm willing to work on it and maintain it. Would you have time to review it? * In light of Bug #920163, I was thinking to have the devscripts source package create a "devscripts-generic" subpackage with all the "non-Debian-specific" scripts. Obviously, "devscripts" would Require devscripts-generic.
(In reply to Oron Peled from comment #8) Generally approved , I have to see better point 2 ... (In reply to Oron Peled from comment #9) > (in reply to comment #5) > > * Yes, devscripts is also valuable in its own right. > > * I'm willing to work on it and maintain it. > Would you have time to review it? yes, I hope so > * In light of Bug #920163, I was thinking to have the > devscripts source package create a "devscripts-generic" > subpackage with all the "non-Debian-specific" scripts. > Obviously, "devscripts" would Require devscripts-generic. Lets build devscripts , let me know what is the bug number. I don't see any need of split in sub-packages, but don't care about it. I'm more concerned how we resolve Bug #920163, maybe because rpmdevtools have some scripts of devscripts, makes sense have a sub-package for what rpmdevtools have ... I don't know just an idea.
Status?
Lets build devscripts
I've put devscripts up for review, see [1]. Also up for review are debian-keyring [2] and ubuntu-keyring [3]. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010000 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009997 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009998
By the way, I'm (successfully) using this pbuilder package currently: SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-1.fc21.src.rpm
hi , I try look at this on weekend , could you post the diff of last spec and your spec ? should we add to this bug report Depends On 1010000, 1009997 and 1009998 ? I see that packages depends on more 2 packages 1009999 and 1009998 ?
Depends on 101000 added. 1009997 and 1009998 are a plus, but not a strict dependency for this package. TBH I wrote my spec before noticing that there was already one up for review, so the diff is rather large and not very useful IMO (I've uploaded it here [1]). But basically most is the same, except that I did not include a uml subpackage (since it currently cannot work), and the spec is somewhat more conforming to the guidelines (i.e. no clean section, no defattr, preserve timestamps, etc). And yes, 109996 is necessary to build debian-keyring, and 1009999 is necessary for devscripts. [1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec.diff
Some updates: SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-2.fc21.src.rpm * Fri Sep 19 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.215-2 - Create build and ccache directories in /var/cache/pbuilder - Don't use hardcoded user id - Prepare pbuilderrc for ccache usage
ok devscripts is in F20 testing, all dependencies are solved , what review should I follow ?
I don't know whether oron is still pursuing this, but I'd be happy to maintain pbuilder. One more update: SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-3.fc21.src.rpm * Tue Oct 08 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.215-3 - Don't test non-existing ubuntu arm mirrors Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6036996
Sandro thanks for your effort , I have to have time , so just in next weekend I will look into it , meanwhile we see if Oron reply to us . Thanks.
SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-4.fc21.src.rpm * Thu Oct 10 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.215-4 - Improve README.fedora - Add some missing requires
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #21) > SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec > SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-4.fc21.src.rpm > > * Thu Oct 10 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.215-4 > - Improve README.fedora > - Add some missing requires ERROR: 'mock build failed, see /home/sergio/rpmbuild/969718-pbuilder/results/build.log' error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B90lintian /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B90list-missing /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B91debc /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B91dpkg-i /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B92test-pkg /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/C10shell /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/C11screen /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D10tmp /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D20addnonfree /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D65various-compiler-support /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D80no-man-db-rebuild /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D90chrootmemo /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/F90chrootmemo /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/execute_installtest.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/execute_paramtest.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/README /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/STRATEGY /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lib/lvmbuilder-checkparams /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lib/lvmbuilder-modules /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lib/lvmbuilder-unimplemented /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lvmbuilder /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuildd/buildd.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuildd/hookdir/A10dpkg-l.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/000_prepinstall /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/001_apprun /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/002_libfile /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/002_sample.c /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/003_makecheck /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/004_ldd /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/README /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilderrc /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/rebuild/README /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/rebuild/buildall /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/rebuild/getlist /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.de.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.fr.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.ja.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.pdf
Please build for f20+, pbuilder won't be packaged for any older Fedora since devscripts is f20+.
Rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6056732
Created attachment 811836 [details] pbuilder.spec.patch (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #23) > Please build for f20+, pbuilder won't be packaged for any older Fedora since > devscripts is f20+. OK I'm check it ... (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1 of bug 1017732) > By the way: since I maintain a number of other debian related packages, I'm > happy to comaintain this one too if desired. Lets begin by pbuilder , your spec is very good, but I'd like to join some knowledge of the spec Oron, with your spec. uml subpackage and more and better comments and descriptions . Since Oron is unresponsive since July , we need other review request , do you want do it ? I send the patch
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #21) > SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec > SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-4.fc21.src.rpm > > * Thu Oct 10 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.215-4 > - Improve README.fedora > - Add some missing requires fedora-review -b 969718 , works now ! we only have minor rpmlint errors and warnings but it can be fixed . pbuilder.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pbuilder replace with %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/pbuilder please pbuilder.src:97: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/pbuilder/ pbuilder.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/pbuilder/pbuilder-uml-checkparams pbuilder.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/pbuilder/pdebuild-uml-checkparams we can't use %{_libdir}, mailman package use %global mmdir /usr/lib/%{name} so we can use: %global pbdir /usr/lib/%{name} %{pbdir}/pbuilder-uml-checkparams %{pbdir}/pdebuild-uml-checkparams
uml: Since user-mode-linux is unavailable for Fedora, the uml subpackage would be broken anyway, so it cannot be provided. rpmlint: - I think the non-conffile-in-etc warning can be ignored, all packages I looked at don't use %config. However, I've changed from %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/pbuilder to %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/ since we don't Requires: bash-completion and hence we need to co-own the directory. - The hardcoded-library-path errors are ignorable pbdir: is this worth it for just three entries? SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-5.fc21.src.rpm * Mon Oct 14 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.215-5 - Package is noarch - Co-own %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #27) > uml: Since user-mode-linux is unavailable for Fedora, the uml subpackage > would be broken anyway, so it cannot be provided. I think we should pack it , it is a work that we advance , when user-mode-linux , we can try install it with an rpm , though > rpmlint: > - I think the non-conffile-in-etc warning can be ignored, all packages I > looked at don't use %config. However, I've changed from > %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/pbuilder > to > %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/ > since we don't Requires: bash-completion and hence we need to co-own the > directory. OK > - The hardcoded-library-path errors are ignorable > > pbdir: is this worth it for just three entries? yes , but not important. Since Oron doesn't reply , please create other request review , and mark this one as duplicated, I will approve your review , and I will ask to be add as co-maintainer .
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1018926 ***