[Bug 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #36 from Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 2009-07-29 07:33:15 EDT --- /me is back. Thanks to all you guys for importing xz! -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #35 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-21 11:20:35 EDT --- CVS done. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #33 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-20 10:49:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #31) Will F-10/F-11 users (for instance: package reviewers) be able to open SRPMs made in rawhide? IMHO, at the least, xz could be held at the testing repos for some time. If we don't flip the default in rawhide, sure! (Obviously) If we do change the default, we'd need an updated package. I was going to leave the timing of that up to the RPM maintainers, though. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #34 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-07-20 16:22:37 EDT --- Talked with notting. We want to branch this so it's available in infrastructure. Builders will be running with a copy from the builder-rpms repo for now but long term it's better to have it in epel. Package Change Request == Package Name: xz New Branches: EL-5 Owners: toshio -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #32 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-07-19 04:20:43 EDT --- Ops, yeah, I just came back from a vacation (forgot to put it in the wiki)...Jason, many thanks you looked into this and sorry for the delay. (In reply to comment #31) Will F-10/F-11 users (for instance: package reviewers) be able to open SRPMs made in rawhide? IMHO, at the least, xz could be held at the testing repos for some time. Maybe I missed the point but why they shouldn't be able to do so? This works just fine. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #31 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 19:13:38 EDT --- Will F-10/F-11 users (for instance: package reviewers) be able to open SRPMs made in rawhide? IMHO, at the least, xz could be held at the testing repos for some time. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #24 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-17 11:38:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) I looked over the licensing and have a question. The code that I believe you currently indicate is LGPLv2+ is public domain unless the getopt_long code is used. But there shouldn't be any reason for that to be compiled or linked in, because glibc should already have it. Indeed, the build log shows no trace of that code being used. So why isn't the bulk of the package public domain? (Obviously the various scripts that are GPLv2+ and are correctly marked as such.) The COPYING file in the tarball is incorrect/premature (see comment #13); the code for the xz commands (src/xz/*.c) is marked as LGPLv2.1+ in its comments. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #25 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-17 12:52:21 EDT --- OK, new files: http://notting.fedorapeople.org/review/xz.spec http://notting.fedorapeople.org/review/xz-4.999.8-0.7.beta.fc11.src.rpm Builds fine; rpmlint says: xz.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary XZ Generally I'd just suggest dropping XZ Utils from the summary, but it's not a big deal. Fixed. xz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4..8-0.6.beta ['4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12', '4.999.8-0.6.beta'] There's an extra '9' in the changelog entry. Fixed. There's a test suite present. I tried it and it fails utterly, though it passes when I build the package locally. I suspect this is related to the rpath issues, so I went with the following: %check LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD/src/liblzma/.libs make check and it worked fine. I think it's a good idea the test suite if at all possible, and it seems possible. Added. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #26 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-17 13:52:12 EDT --- Looks good; the issues I had are fixed, rpmlint is down to the acceptable complaints covered earlier and the license issue has been clarified (although I thought I understood a comment on the upstream web site to indicate that the COPYING file had been corrected in this version). The test suite runs and passes on my builder: All 7 tests passed 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #27 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-17 14:02:21 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xz Short Description: LZMA compression utilities Owners: jnovy notting Branches: F-11 F-10 InitialCC: -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #28 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-17 14:08:21 EDT --- Thank you all for finishing the review. Me and many people appreciate it. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #29 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-17 14:11:49 EDT --- CVS done. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |RAWHIDE -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #30 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-17 14:27:12 EDT --- Building for rawhide. I'll leave when to submit updates for earlier releases up to Jindrich. Thanks all for the help! -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|xja...@fi.muni.cz |ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-16 20:25:30 EDT --- Perhaps Milos is on vacation, but it's come to my attention that this is critical and needs a review immediately, so I've volunteered to take care of this. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but we have some important stuff waiting on this review. Builds fine; rpmlint says: xz.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary XZ Generally I'd just suggest dropping XZ Utils from the summary, but it's not a big deal. xz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4..8-0.6.beta ['4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12', '4.999.8-0.6.beta'] There's an extra '9' in the changelog entry. xz-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation OK. xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzcat xz xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/unlzma xz xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzma xz These are OK because the links aren't dangling when dependencies are installed. xz-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblzma.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 This isn't a particularly big deal. So outside of one typo in the changelog, I don't see anything that really needs fixing. I looked over the licensing and have a question. The code that I believe you currently indicate is LGPLv2+ is public domain unless the getopt_long code is used. But there shouldn't be any reason for that to be compiled or linked in, because glibc should already have it. Indeed, the build log shows no trace of that code being used. So why isn't the bulk of the package public domain? (Obviously the various scripts that are GPLv2+ and are correctly marked as such.) There's a test suite present. I tried it and it fails utterly, though it passes when I build the package locally. I suspect this is related to the rpath issues, so I went with the following: %check LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD/src/liblzma/.libs make check and it worked fine. I think it's a good idea the test suite if at all possible, and it seems possible. Any reason not to add it? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 059da5a9fe51c28b38f67e5b8063a451c516f37fbb268177fd1081b70dd97f53 xz-4.999.8beta.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? license fields match the actual licenses. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: xz-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm xz = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz-libs = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-devel-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm pkgconfig(liblzma) = 4.999.8beta xz-devel = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-devel(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = /usr/bin/pkg-config liblzma.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig xz-libs = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-libs-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz-libs = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-libs(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = /sbin/ldconfig liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz-lzma-compat-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12.x86_64.rpm lzma = 5 xz-lzma-compat = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 xz-lzma-compat(x86-64) = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 = /bin/sh liblzma.so.0()(64bit) xz = 4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc12 * %check is not present but there's a test suite. * shared libraries are installed: ldconfig called properly. unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (excepting license files, which has been deemed OK). * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * pkgconfig file is in the
[Bug 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #21 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-14 10:08:55 EDT --- Orcan: shouldn't be an issue; triggers will fire on the package that provides 'lzma'. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #22 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-14 10:18:59 EDT --- I lied. triggers only fire on package names. Sorry. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #20 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-11 17:41:22 EDT --- Any ideas how I should handle the %trigger* lzma part of deco? http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewvc/devel/deco-archive/deco-archive.spec?view=markup Will lzma-compat trigger it or should I change the %trigger* entries to lzma-compat? -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ova...@redhat.com --- Comment #16 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-07-09 04:22:32 EDT --- Jindra is on PTO (3 weeks - so quite a lot of time) so maybe someone else should fix those issues mentioned in comment #13. I'd like to see xz utils in Fedora too - as otherwise I still have to use 3 times bigger tar.gz tarball for coreutils (so bigger srpm). -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339
--- Comment #17 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-09 14:32:33
EDT ---
OK, new files:
http://notting.fedorapeople.org/review/xz.spec
http://notting.fedorapeople.org/review/xz-4.999.8-0.6.beta.fc11.src.rpm
Changes:
--- xz.spec.old 2009-07-09 14:27:13.0 -0400
+++ xz.spec 2009-07-09 14:27:36.0 -0400
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
Summary: XZ Utils, LZMA compression utilities
Name: xz
Version: 4.999.8
-Release: 0.5beta%{?dist}
-License: GPLv2+
+Release: 0.6.beta%{?dist}
+License: LGPLv2+
Group: Applications/File
Source0: http://tukaani.org/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}beta.tar.gz
URL: http://tukaani.org/%{name}/
@@ -10,14 +10,14 @@
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
%description
-XZ Utils are an attempt to make LZMA compression easy to use
-on free (as in freedom) operating systems. This is achieved by
-providing tools and libraries which are similar to use than the
-equivalents of the most popular existing compression algorithms.
-
-LZMA is a general purporse compression algorithm designed by
-Igor Pavlov as part of 7-Zip. It provides high compression ratio
-while keeping the decompression speed fast.
+XZ Utils are an attempt to make LZMA compression easy to use on free (as in
+freedom) operating systems. This is achieved by providing tools and libraries
+which are similar to use than the equivalents of the most popular existing
+compression algorithms.
+
+LZMA is a general purporse compression algorithm designed by Igor Pavlov as
+part of 7-Zip. It provides high compression ratio while keeping the
+decompression speed fast.
%package libs
Summary: Libraries for decoding LZMA compression
@@ -35,18 +35,20 @@
Requires: pkgconfig
%description devel
-Devel libraries headers for liblzma.
+Devel libraries and headers for liblzma.
%package lzma-compat
-Summary: Devel libraries headers for liblzma
+Summary: Older LZMA format compatibility binaries
Group: Development/Libraries
-License: LGPLv2+
+# lz{grep,diff,more} are GPLv2+. Other binaries are LGPLv2+
+License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: lzma 5
Provides: lzma = 5
%description lzma-compat
-Compatibility files for lzma.
+The lzma-compat package contains compatibility links for older
+commands that deal with the older LZMA format.
%prep
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}beta
@@ -97,6 +99,11 @@
%{_mandir}/man1/*
%changelog
+* Thu Jul 09 2009 Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 4..8-0.6.beta
+- fix release versioning to match guidelines
+- fix up lzma-compat summary/description
+- tweak licensing
+
* Mon Jun 22 2009 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 4.999.8beta-0.5
- introduce lzma-compat subpackage
As for the licensing, rather than rebase the tarball, I just updated the spec
to reflect the code currently in the tarball. Core xz command is PD + LGPL code
linked together, therefore it's LGPL. Similarly for the libraries. The only GPL
code is the lz* scripts, which are in the compat package.
Obviously, those license tags can change when the code is rebased.
--
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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #18 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-07-09 14:42:27 EDT --- Just one small comment - in description is a typo purporse. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #19 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-09 14:44:17 EDT --- Fixed. Didn't bump the release just for that. :) -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #14 from Panu Matilainen pmati...@redhat.com 2009-07-01 07:30:16 EDT --- One possibility would be using a snapshot from the git repo instead of the official beta tarball, that would get the licensing straight from the start: commit 02ddf09bc3079b3e17297729b9e43f14d407b8fc Author: Lasse Collin lasse.col...@tukaani.org Date: Mon Apr 13 11:27:40 2009 +0300 Put the interesting parts of XZ Utils into the public domain. Some minor documentation cleanups were made at the same time. In addition to that, there are a few fairly important looking fixes, such as xz crashing when decompressing two files with a single xz command, and identifying some corrupted files as valid. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #13 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-06-30 17:11:14 EDT --- Orcan, I'm really sorry for my late response, but I'm having busy days now (and yes, I must have missed whatever you sent to f-d-l, sorry too). I'm generally open to any modification to the current lzma package which will help the symbiosis with xz, however, I really like the latest solution from Jindrich (only -debuginfo are conflicting, which I don't find any bad) and if nobody comes up with something we missed as far, I'm going to approve the package in a day or two. Other minor comments on packaging: * rpmlint: rpmlint ../SRPMS/xz-4.999.8-0.5beta.fc11.src.rpm xz.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary XZ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/xz-* xz-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzcat xz xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/unlzma xz xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzma xz xz.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary XZ Those are all OK imho. xz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.999.8beta-0.5 ['4.999.8-0.5beta.fc11', '4.999.8-0.5beta'] Make rpmlint happy here please, together with adding a dot as Orcan pointed out. * specfile is sane, owns all directories, proper macros * builds fine in current F11 and rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444933 * matches upstream sources, sha256sum: 059da5a9fe51c28b38f67e5b8063a451c516f37fbb268177fd1081b70dd97f53 * handles libraries well * I have some worries regarding licensing because of the comment on upstream's homepage: Oops! Accidentally a wrong COPYING file got included in 4.999.8beta. 4.999.8beta is still under GNU LGPL, but the first stable release will be in the public domain like the incorrectly included draft of new COPYING in 4.999.8beta already hints. Currently it is definitely *not* LGPLv2.1+ (in this case) but I'm also afraid that authors claims about becoming Public domain are not right too. Hence GPLv2+ seems to be ok to me (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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #12 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-06-24 10:29:49 EDT --- I don't think alternatives is correct when one package is a superset/(eventual) replacement of the other. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-06-24 01:33:22 EDT --- How about using alternatives for lzma stuff? alternatives works very well for packages which use it. I just found this bug. It would have been nice if the lzma maintainer didn't ignore my emails about this subject in the last one and a half months but I'm glad someone started the work. Jindrich, according to the guidelines there has to be a . between 5 and beta. Also, please make the description span the 80 columns (as much as possible). -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #10 from Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 2009-06-22 04:20:32 EDT --- The best solution seems to be to add lzma-compat package where all the lzma stuff from xz is shipped. It doesn't need any modifications on lzma side. Adding Obsoletes/Provides to the compat package just obsoletes lzma, not lzma-libs or lzma-devel so all dependencies on liblzmadec are kept. Check out the new packages: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/xz/xz.spec http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/xz/xz-4.999.8-0.5beta.fc11.src.rpm Asked upstream about the lzmainfo: 18:33 jnovy Larhzu: Hi Lasse, is it intentional that lzmainfo equivalent is missing from xz? 18:35 Larhzu jnovy: For now, yes, but there will be xz --list like gzip has, and I guess I can add lzmainfo for backward compatibility. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #8 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi 2009-06-21 05:32:31 EDT --- Well, an AFAICT complete working solution was already given in comment 1: Ship the xz package as is from my specfile, and modify the current Fedora lzma package so that everything else except lzmainfo and its man page is removed from the main lzma package, and add Requires: xz to the main package (leave lzma-libs and lzma-devel as is). -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #9 from Panu Matilainen pmati...@redhat.com 2009-06-22 00:34:00 EDT --- Sure, that'd work too, it just a) requires changes to existing packages to all supported versions b) replaces functionality of stable lzma with a beta version The only the xz bits variant from comment #7 allows dropping it with minimal fuss. I dont have any strong feelings about it either way though. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #7 from Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 2009-06-19 07:45:50 EDT --- New files are here: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/xz/ But the problem is that there still are conflicts with lzma after /usr/bin/*lz* removal. Man pages are conflicting. Only the obsolete man pages are shipped. There are actually no man pages remaining after nuking the lzma related ones... -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Panu Matilainen pmati...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pmati...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Panu Matilainen pmati...@redhat.com 2009-06-18 16:48:45 EDT --- Doesn't really fly: [r...@turre rpm]# rpm -Uvh /home/pmatilai/rpmbuild/RPMS/xz-4.999.8-0.3beta.fc11.x86_64.rpm /home/pmatilai/rpmbuild/RPMS/xz-libs-4.999.8-0.3beta.fc11.x86_64.rpm /home/pmatilai/rpmbuild/RPMS/xz-devel-4.999.8-0.3beta.fc11.x86_64.rpm error: Failed dependencies: lzma is needed by (installed) man-1.6f-20.fc11.x86_64 lzma is needed by (installed) rpm-build-4.7.0.git9198-1.fc11.lorg.x86_64 liblzmadec.so.0()(64bit) is needed by (installed) libarchive-2.6.2-1.fc11.x86_64 How about we simply leave out the lzma bits from the xz package? Ie dont obsolete or conflict with anything, and only include the actual xz binaries in the main package: /usr/bin/unxz /usr/bin/xz /usr/bin/xzcat /usr/bin/xzdec -libs and -devel are not a problem as they dont conflict and those are the only bits that rpm really needs for payload compression, /usr/bin/xz is only useful for supporting xz compressed sources in build, the old stable lzma can be used to provide the /usr/bin/*lz* bits for 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #3 from Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 2009-06-17 02:47:09 EDT --- Milos, thanks for taking the review and posting here the mailing WRT the XZ utils packaging. I see I was not the first one to package XZ :) The lzma and xz does conflict so better to IMO obsolete the old lzma by xz. I added the obsoletion and provides to the spec. XZ supports old lzma format as well az XZ so there should be no compatibility issues. Ville, thanks for your spec. It helped me to add the pkgconfig dependency to xz-devel. Another thing is version which is wierd - 4.999.8beta. Should we move the beta to release as Ville did? This seems to be the last release before the XZ-5 so is that worth the trouble? I'll ask upstream about the lzmainfo. BTW. spec and SRPM is now updated. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #4 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi 2009-06-17 12:25:05 EDT --- I think obsoleting lzma-libs and lzma-devel is definitely premature, and providing them is wrong and should never happen (obsoletion _only_ without provides when the time is right to drop lzma). xz-libs does *not* provide the stuff in lzma-libs (liblzmadec) and xz-devel does not IIRC provide the headers and pkgconfig file that lzma-devel does, and we have packages depending on both in the repo, at least libarchive, never mind people's local builds against lzma-libs/-devel. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages Yes, beta should be in the release tag. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #5 from Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com 2009-06-17 14:39:51 EDT --- Ok, there is another iteration of packages here: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/xz/ -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgran...@redhat.com, ||ville.sky...@iki.fi, ||xja...@fi.muni.cz AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|xja...@fi.muni.cz Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-06-16 16:01:21 EDT --- We have to decide how this package will work together with the current lzma. There was already a brief discussion regarding this issue with Ville Skyttä and Joel Granados (cc'ed, input welcome). I'm pasting an e-mail summary: On Wednesday 10 June 2009, Joel Granados wrote: On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 07:37:10PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: On Tuesday 09 June 2009, Joel Granados wrote: Hello Ville. Hello Joel, I'm Joel and I maintain parted for fedora. parted upstream started using XZ for its build tests and it is needed in fedora, at least for parted. I asked in #fedora-devel about XZ in fedora and I was told that you were looking into packaging it. Do you have a spec file proposal? How far along are you in the packaging process? Is there something I can help you with? Why have you not posted the package on the review queue? I think, in general, I want to know the status on the packaging effort. I did put together an initial package of xz, unfortunately without realizing Great!!!, saves me the trouble of doing one myself :) that it conflicts quite a bit with the current Fedora lzma package. Below is really? Thats not good I spoke to the lzma upstream and he told me that it was possible to have the to coexist in a system. Reading your mail interchange I see that it _is_ a possibility. I would think this to be the prefered solution so we don't break whatever is using the original lzma command. I agree that it seems possible. It will require some changes to the lzma package though. a copy of a quick mail exchange with the new Fedora lzma maintainer Milos Jakubicek (Cc'd) we had in the beginning of May, I haven't heard back nor have done anything myself neither to xz or lzma since. I would be interested in getting this in to fedora (having the two coexist) I'm guessing that the only thing needed is to change the xz.spec file in such a way that, when installed, it does not conflict with LZMA. You mind if I use your spec file as a starting point for this? I would think, with my current workload, that I would make it ready for f12 or f13(the latest). Do you have any plans regarding this package? Not really, and by all means, please use my specfile if you find it useful, that's why I uploaded it in the first place ;) Here's a breakdown of the conflicts and other compatibility issues between lzma and xz: Conflicts: * /usr/bin/lzcat * /usr/bin/lzma * /usr/bin/lzmadec * /usr/bin/unlzma * /usr/share/man/man1/lzdiff.1.gz * /usr/share/man/man1/lzgrep.1.gz * /usr/share/man/man1/lzmore.1.gz Included in lzma, not in xz: * /usr/bin/lzmainfo Included in lzma-libs, not in xz-libs: * liblzmadec.so.* Included in lzma-devel, not in xz-devel: * lzmadec.h * liblzmadec.so Personally, I would approach this stuff from the POV that eventually xz will obsolete lzma altogether. I think this could be a good way to go (just thinking aloud, not actually tested): Ship the xz package as is from my specfile, and modify the current Fedora lzma package so that everything else except lzmainfo and its man page is removed from the main lzma package, and add Requires: xz to the main package (leave lzma-libs and lzma-devel as is). If you are in contact with upstream xz devs, I think it would be good to ask why lzmainfo is not included with xz. If it was, the transition would be simpler; the xz main package could just obsolete the lzma main package, and the lzma source package could be modified so that the main package would be dropped, and only the -libs and -devel subpackages would be shipped. I'll be able to look at this in more detail at weekend. -- 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 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format
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=506339 --- Comment #2 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi 2009-06-16 18:01:58 EDT --- For the record and FWIW, the my specfile referred to in comment 1's mail summary is http://scop.fedorapeople.org/packages/xz.spec -- 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
