[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 Bug Zapper fedora-triage-l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #18 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-l...@redhat.com 2009-12-18 04:17:44 EDT --- Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 --- Comment #17 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-l...@redhat.com 2009-11-18 06:47:51 EDT --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-06-11 21:15:46 EDT --- Okay, so Paul's finished the review of the other package. This package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 --- Comment #15 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-05-12 09:26:58 EDT --- What is the final status of this packages?, is going to be included in fed11?, as an update in the repos? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #14 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-05-06
16:46:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top:
# rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages
%global debug_package %{nil}
Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description
?
top of the file. It's easiest to spot definitions of global variables when
they're at the top.
what is the status of this package then?, can be say it that is
ready?, is going to be included into fed11, fed12?, any chance that can be
rebuilded with all mono/monodevelop stack for fed10?
Thanks
Mauricio
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #13 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-30
11:43:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top:
# rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages
%global debug_package %{nil}
Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description
?
top of the file. It's easiest to spot definitions of global variables when
they're at the top.
Sorry for the delay, to bussy the last ones...Ok, here is the new review:
http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review4
I get the Paul answer for the mdb package, so I going to apply what to learn
here...stay tune..
Thanks Toshio
Mauricio
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #10 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-27
15:38:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top:
# rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages
%global debug_package %{nil}
Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description ?
Also, waiting Paul answer about take over the mdb package, as soon as I get the
response I going to apply what I learn with this review to that one for your
review...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #11 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-27
15:58:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
monodevelop is being built on:
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha
Ok yes, using the monodevelop one, please check that my ExclusiveArch is ok
then, I remove the Build: noarch, that ok then?
Yep, your ExclusiveArch line is fine now.
Good :-)
DONE, added the sed thing, don't quite sure about not make a mess with a
patch.
heh. You'll have to learn about diff and patch sooner or later since it's an
integral part of package building but the sed line is fine for this package.
yeap I know basic diff/patch commands, just that I don't want to mess my first
package and the sed command seems to be more proved for now...
* You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you
also want
to add the disttag, the next release should be:
Release: 2%{?dist}
not sure about what to do with this, I added that and package end with
fc10.rpm...
Yep. %{?dist} is a macro. So when rpm builds the package on F-10, it expands
Release: 2%{?dist}
into:
Release: 2.fc10
When you build on F-11 it expands to:
Release: 2.fc11
and so on.
* You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the
format is
shown here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
Ok I add a simple one, I try to put one in more details but as soon as I
write
things like Add sed to the %prep section.. or stuff like taht, rpmbuild
claim
about thing tha he think that are sections and not take the text as just
comments even if put %prep in quotations..
What happens is that macros/section headers are always expanded by rpmbuild.
(Note: This happens even when the macro is commented out.) To get around
that,
escape the % with another %. So your changelog could look like:
%changelog
* Fri Apr 24 2009 Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com - 2.0
- Fix the install directory via sed in the %%prep section.
ok, I apply this to the following changelog comments..
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission
monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755
* 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball.
Can this be fixed in the tarball on koji?, or I have to change the
permission
of the tarball on the site that I put it?
This would be fixed by changing the permissions before you build the
package/checkin the source. I got the tarball out of your source rpm
originally.
Ok changed
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
mmm, not sure what to do about this, is that a good or bad thing? (probably
a
bad one :-)
In this case, these are false positives so they can all be ignored. The
reason
they're false positives for this package are written in comment #6
The only other thing I notice in the updated spec is the buildroot tag. If
you
look here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
Ok, updated files are:
http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review3
By the way, my main goal is to have this also for fed10, for that all the mono
and monodevelop packages for fed11 from koji have to be rebuilded for fed10,
currently I made that by hand, but the idea is to let koji to do that right?
As soon as I get the Paul answer I going to apply what I learn here to the mdb
and other packages for your review...
Thanks for your kind help Toshio
Mauricio
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #12 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-27
17:01:39 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top:
# rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages
%global debug_package %{nil}
Ok, I have to move that to the tip of the file? or just before %description ?
top of the file. It's easiest to spot definitions of global variables when
they're at the top.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 --- Comment #7 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-24 11:35:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) I realized that it's a little ambiguous which of the rpmlint output you have to act on. These are the ones that are false positives for this package: monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation mmm, not sure what to do about this, is that a good or bad thing? (probably a bad one :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #6 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-24
11:34:18 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Change the Release tag to:
DONE
Ah. Sorry. I should have put that in the Good section. Your encoding is
fine.
Great
* Still need to move the %file section to just before the %changelog section
DONE
monodevelop is being built on:
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha
You probably want to go with monodevelop's version as it is the more
restricted
of the two. Since ppc and ppc64 is left off of there, you want to follow the
Ok yes, using the monodevelop one, please check that my ExclusiveArch is ok
then, I remove the Build: noarch, that ok then?
Yeah... I took a look. The package has a hand-coded configure script instead
of an autoconf generated one so it has limited options. Try this for the
configure line:
./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --bindir=%{_bindir} --datadir=%{_datadir}
--libdir=%{_libdir}
DONE
And it looks like you'll also have to patch one of the make files.
MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make hardcodes $(prefix)/lib/ instead of allowing
libdir to override that. You can patch the file or put this sed line into
your
%prep section:
sed -i 's!INSTALL_DIR =
$(DESTDIR)$(prefix)/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!INSTALL_DIR =
$(DESTDIR)%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!'
MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make
DONE, added the sed thing, don't quite sure about not make a mess with a
patch.
So it looks like you'll need to modify the file line a little.
DONE, using:
%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
now
New things:
* You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also
want
to add the disttag, the next release should be:
Release: 2%{?dist}
not sure about what to do with this, I added that and package end with
fc10.rpm...
I was able to build in mock with the changes mentioned here.
Great, reviewd file can be found here:
http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review2
So rpmlint output
from the packages:
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
* You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format is
shown here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
Ok I add a simple one, I try to put one in more details but as soon as I write
things like Add sed to the %prep section.. or stuff like taht, rpmbuild claim
about thing tha he think that are sections and not take the text as just
comments even if put %prep in quotations..
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission
monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755
* 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball.
Can this be fixed in the tarball on koji?, or I have to change the permission
of the tarball on the site that I put it?
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2,
tab: line 1)
DONE, tabs removed
* mono packages that only contain assemblies have no ELF files but they use
architecture specific directories so they cannot be noarch.
Not sure what to do about this.
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
* In this case upstream is not providing any documentation files
Yeap no doc at the moment, so not my fault ;-) , probably because this is a
really new addin.
monodevelop-debugger-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
* Presently, rpm doesn't know how to pull debug information from mono
assemblies. So we should be stopping the generation of debuginfo files. This
will change in the future. This page has details of how to fix this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons
You want to add this to your spec file:
# rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages
%global debug_package %{nil}
Yeap, I read about that fixing other package, so I add the line to this one,
DONE
Thanks,
Mauricio
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-24
12:48:29 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
monodevelop is being built on:
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha
Ok yes, using the monodevelop one, please check that my ExclusiveArch is ok
then, I remove the Build: noarch, that ok then?
Yep, your ExclusiveArch line is fine now.
DONE, added the sed thing, don't quite sure about not make a mess with a
patch.
heh. You'll have to learn about diff and patch sooner or later since it's an
integral part of package building but the sed line is fine for this package.
* You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also
want
to add the disttag, the next release should be:
Release: 2%{?dist}
not sure about what to do with this, I added that and package end with
fc10.rpm...
Yep. %{?dist} is a macro. So when rpm builds the package on F-10, it expands
Release: 2%{?dist}
into:
Release: 2.fc10
When you build on F-11 it expands to:
Release: 2.fc11
and so on.
* You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format
is
shown here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
Ok I add a simple one, I try to put one in more details but as soon as I write
things like Add sed to the %prep section.. or stuff like taht, rpmbuild
claim
about thing tha he think that are sections and not take the text as just
comments even if put %prep in quotations..
What happens is that macros/section headers are always expanded by rpmbuild.
(Note: This happens even when the macro is commented out.) To get around that,
escape the % with another %. So your changelog could look like:
%changelog
* Fri Apr 24 2009 Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com - 2.0
- Fix the install directory via sed in the %%prep section.
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission
monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755
* 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball.
Can this be fixed in the tarball on koji?, or I have to change the permission
of the tarball on the site that I put it?
This would be fixed by changing the permissions before you build the
package/checkin the source. I got the tarball out of your source rpm
originally.
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
mmm, not sure what to do about this, is that a good or bad thing? (probably a
bad one :-)
In this case, these are false positives so they can all be ignored. The reason
they're false positives for this package are written in comment #6
The only other thing I notice in the updated spec is the buildroot tag. If you
look here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #9 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-24
12:54:07 EDT ---
Oh -- and this just a readability nit. I'd move this up to the top:
# rpm does not currently pull debuginfo out of mono packages
%global debug_package %{nil}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.bad...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 --- Comment #2 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-23 12:52:27 EDT --- Needswork: * Does not build in mock/koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1317154 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1317154name=build.log Looks like you need to BuildRequire: monodevelop-devel rather than monodevelop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #3 from Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com 2009-04-23
16:56:58 EDT ---
First the doubts:
you say: * Package is named according to the naming Guidelines
My packages don't end with .fc10.rpm , don't know how to instruct rpmbuild to
use that kind of name convention.
On *Needswork section you say: * All filenames are UTF-8, that is good or
bad?, need to change the text encoding?
Fixed:
* Spec file readability - DONE
* License tag should just be MIT - DONE
* The Source: line needs to have the full URL to the source - DONE
* The vendor: tag should not be present in Fedora specfiles. - DONE
* Autoreqprov should normally not be in Fedora spec files. - DONE
* BuildArch: i386 does not belong in the spec file: Here some doubts don't know
if this addins are goin to compile fine in all architectures, it seems to me
that it have to just x86/x86_64 for now, how do I mix the BuildArch: noarh
and ExclusiveArch: x86 x86_64?
* env_options isn't a macro used in Fedora - DONE
* You should use %configure rather than ./configure: Problem here, using
%configure I get:
ind-tables -I/usr/lib/gfortran/modules'
+ export FFLAGS
+ ./configure --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
--target=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr
--exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc
--datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib
--libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
Unknown argument --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu
Usage : configure [OPTION]... [--config=CONFIG]
So, it seems to me that the %configure macro use something that the package
script don't know, so I use again ./configure witch give now a error message:
RPM build errors:
File not found by glob:
/home/buho/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0-1.1.i386/usr/lib/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
Witch is related to the use of:
%{_libdir}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
instead of the original:
%{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
* --prefix=%_prefix is included in the %configure macro so you don't need it if
you use the %configure macro. - SEE PREVIOUS
* In Fedora, mono libraries are installed in %{_libdir} instead of /usr/lib.
On x86_64 systems, that expands to /usr/lib6 instead of /usr/lib.- SEE PREVIOUS
* package needs to rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install - DONE
* All filenames are UTF-8 - GOOD/BAD?
* No license file is included in the tarball so you should ask upstream if
they'll provide one with their next release. - ASKING
* Looks like you need to BuildRequire: monodevelop-devel rather than
monodevelop. - DONE
Reviewed file can be found:
http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/monodevelop-debugger-gdb.spec.review1
Thanks Toshio
Mauricio
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 --- Comment #5 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-23 20:17:46 EDT --- I realized that it's a little ambiguous which of the rpmlint output you have to act on. These are the ones that are false positives for this package: monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
--- Comment #4 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-23
20:16:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
First the doubts:
you say: * Package is named according to the naming Guidelines
My packages don't end with .fc10.rpm , don't know how to instruct rpmbuild to
use that kind of name convention.
Ah... this is optional, but it actually is a good thing to do (so upgrades
between releases work). Change the Release tag to:
Release: 2%{?dist}
The %{dist} macro expands to fc10 on fedora 10, fc11 on Fedora 11, etc. The
? in the macro allows the rpm to build if the macro isn't defined on the
system on which you're building.
On *Needswork section you say: * All filenames are UTF-8, that is good or
bad?, need to change the text encoding?
Ah. Sorry. I should have put that in the Good section. Your encoding is
fine.
Fixed:
* Spec file readability - DONE
* Still need to move the %file section to just before the %changelog section
* BuildArch: i386 does not belong in the spec file: Here some doubts don't
know
if this addins are goin to compile fine in all architectures, it seems to me
that it have to just x86/x86_64 for now, how do I mix the BuildArch: noarh
and ExclusiveArch: x86 x86_64?
* You would do:
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64
But what keeps the addins from compiling on other arches? mono itself is being
built on:
%ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparcv9 alpha s390 s390x ppc ppc64
monodevelop is being built on:
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ia64 armv4l sparc alpha
You probably want to go with monodevelop's version as it is the more restricted
of the two. Since ppc and ppc64 is left off of there, you want to follow the
directions here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support
So that people associated with ppc and ppc64 ports can track this bug and
attempt to fix it.
* You should use %configure rather than ./configure: Problem here, using
%configure I get:
Yeah... I took a look. The package has a hand-coded configure script instead
of an autoconf generated one so it has limited options. Try this for the
configure line:
./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --bindir=%{_bindir} --datadir=%{_datadir}
--libdir=%{_libdir}
And it looks like you'll also have to patch one of the make files.
MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make hardcodes $(prefix)/lib/ instead of allowing
libdir to override that. You can patch the file or put this sed line into your
%prep section:
sed -i 's!INSTALL_DIR =
$(DESTDIR)$(prefix)/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!INSTALL_DIR =
$(DESTDIR)%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger!'
MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.make
RPM build errors:
File not found by glob:
/home/buho/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0-1.1.i386/usr/lib/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
Witch is related to the use of:
%{_libdir}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
the goal is to be able to use:
%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
So it looks like you'll need to modify the file line a little.
New things:
* You need to bump the Release: field with every revision. Since you also want
to add the disttag, the next release should be:
Release: 2%{?dist}
I was able to build in mock with the changes mentioned here. So rpmlint output
from the packages:
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
* You need to add a %changelog entry to tell what you've done. the format is
shown here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: strange-permission
monodevelop-debugger-gdb-2.0.tar.bz2 0755
* 0644 would be the normal permissions for a tarball.
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2,
tab: line 1)
* Converting all tabs in the specfile into spaces would be a good idea.
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: E: no-binary
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
* mono packages that only contain assemblies have no ELF files but they use
architecture specific directories so they cannot be noarch.
monodevelop-debugger-gdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
* In this case upstream is not providing any documentation files
monodevelop-debugger-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
* Presently, rpm doesn't know how to pull debug information from mono
assemblies. So we should be stopping the generation of debuginfo files. This
will change in the future. This page has details of how to fix this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons
You want to add this to your
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.bad...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-04-22
16:55:47 EDT ---
A few links to packaging guidelines:
List of important guideline points that all packages are reviewed for:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Main Guidelines page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Guidelines for packaging mono packages in Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono
Review:
Good:
* Package is named according to the naming Guidelines
* Spec file name matches the package name
* License of the software is MIT
* Source matches the upstream tarball
* No locales
* No shared libraries
* No Prefix specified
* No duplicate files or directories
* Proper %clean section
* Package is code, not content
* No documentation, so no %doc subpackage
* Not a standalone GUI app so no .desktop
Needswork:
* Spec file readability -- In Fedora the sections are usually in a different
order. Having them be in a standard order doesn't help the package build but
it does help other people reviewing the spec or who work on it later. There's
many simple spec files in cvs to look at. For instance:
- http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/monodoc/devel/monodoc.spec
* License tag should just be MIT
-
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names
* The Source: line needs to have the full URL to the source
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
* The vendor: tag should not be present in Fedora specfiles. It will be
automatically files in by the buildsystem.
* Autoreqprov should normally not be in Fedora spec files. It is on by defaul.
* BuildArch: i386 does not belong in the spec file. In Fedora we really only
use BuildArch: noarch which specifies that the package can be built on any
architecture and will create an architecture independent package. If we need
to limit the arches that the package builds on, we use ExcludeArch or
ExclusiveArch
* env_options isn't a macro used in Fedora
* You should use %configure rather than ./configure unless there's a reason.
* --prefix=%_prefix is included in the %configure macro so you don't need it if
you use the %configure macro.
* In Fedora, mono libraries are installed in %{_libdir} instead of /usr/lib.
On x86_64 systems, that expands to /usr/lib6 instead of /usr/lib. So use this
in the %files section:
%{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/MonoDevelop.Debugger.Gdb.dll*
* package needs to rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install
* All filenames are UTF-8
* No license file is included in the tarball so you should ask upstream if
they'll provide one with their next release.
Trying a build in mock now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 496633] Review Request: monodevelop-debugger-gdb - GDB Debugger Addin for MonoDevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496633 Mauricio Henriquez buhochil...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
