[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-02 14:51:03 --- Comment #8 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/texlive-base -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts --- Thanks, spot. Sorry to be a pain about the shebang thing. If in the future you need help to dig into the mess of non-shebang-ed scripts down in there to try and clean them up, please let me know. I'm still interested in making the texlive stack less horrible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 --- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- * Wed Mar 7 2018 Tom Callaway - 7:20170520-18 - switch to shebang mangling that does not change exec perms most/all of the mangling is correct, but we do not want to risk breaking ancient texlive scripts that are suddenly -x - add versions for arara bundled provides - use spaces instead of tabs Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/texlive-base.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/texlive-base-20170520-18.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts --- The thing is about disabling brp-mangle-shebangs that if you don't let rpm fix some of those things then you will have to fix them by hand. I can understand not wanting to audit every bit of the massive texlive package, but the < 150 cases in this somewhat less massive package doesn't seem unreasonable. And we are trying to crack down on various classes of shebang-related issues, so I wouldn't think it proper to just ignore it because it's texlive. But one thing of note is that none of the mangled scriptlets are anywhere in the usual path; they're all under the dumpster fire that is /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist. So, uh, maybe we could just compromise on this? %global __brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude_from /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/(scripts|doc) That way it won't set off any flags for disabling the script completely, and if anything with an errant shebang does get installed outside of those two paths in the future, it will be fixed up. With the current package, that results in no changes as far as I can tell. Even then, there is a bunch of stuff down in there that really does need to get fixed up at some point. The stuff in "doc" really shouldn't matter (or things are really messed up). The python stuff is probably all going to break, all of the env stuff is fragile and depends on what the user has in their PATH, and the scripts which legitimately have no shebang line are just hideous. (The old "valid as both sh and perl" hack is used in some.) I just have no idea if any of that stuff ever gets executed. I guess we can assume that the executable ".bat" things don't ever get called. You could also just do %global __brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude ^$ to keep it from removing the executable bits when no shebang line is found, as a few of those are actually valid. The fixups that are left are all things that need to get done at some point in any case. The rest does look pretty much OK. Some nitpicks which I won't quibble over but which vim yells about when I open the spec: The texlive-arara package has eight bundled(*) provides; it would be nice to get versions on those if at all possible. There are some tab indents around line 6673. The rest of the spec seems to use space indents, though it's two spaces in some places and eight in others. Vim complains about a few trailing spaces, but most people don't care. That's all I can think of. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- I disabled the shebangs script because texlive is notoriously ancient, huge, and finicky. I did not want to have to go through it and find all the places where the script was making changes that were incorrect. I also suspect strongly that the texlive upstream will not be willing to accept changes away from /usr/bin/env. Example: the script was removing the exec bit on subscripts inside R, which R was executing internally, causing all of the R packages to stop working in rawhide. I suspect it is highly likely that loss of permissions in the texlive universe will result in the same sort of failures. On the topic of versioning, I could not come up with a good reason for the odd "year only" versioning on some provides (but not others), so I just simplified everything to one model. AFAIK, nothing else in Fedora was expecting to find the year only versioning. Here comes -17: - add Provides: tetex-latex to the latex subpackage - fix obviously incorrect license tag on -base package - use %%_rpmmacrodir instead of our local %%macrosdir - add BuildRequires: gcc gcc-c++ Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/texlive-base.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/texlive-base-20170520-17.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts --- Also, for grins, I let brp-mangle-shebangs run and I do see that it's finding things which will indeed be problematic at some point. There are plenty of /usr/bin/env calls, which do need to be fixed up. Some executable .pl and .pm files have no shebang at all, so their executable bits are stripped. And there are some ambiguous python scripts (using "#!/usr/bin/env python" which is a big no-no. A breakdown follows, but honestly everything it's fixing looks valid and I don't see why you wouldn't want to let it do its job. One script tries to pass options on the shebang line, which doesn't even work in Linux: BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/de-macro/de-macro from #!/usr/bin/python -O to #!/usr/bin/python2 -O. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! Ambiguous pythons: BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/dviasm/dviasm.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/ebong/ebong.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/latex-papersize/latex-papersize.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/lilyglyphs/lily-glyph-commands.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/lilyglyphs/lilyglyphs_common.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/lilyglyphs/lily-image-commands.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/lilyglyphs/lily-rebuild-pdfs.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/pdfbook2/pdfbook2 from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/pythontex/depythontex.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/pythontex/pythontex_2to3.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/pythontex/pythontex_install.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/pythontex/pythontex.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: mangling shebang in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/texliveonfly/texliveonfly.py from #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/bin/python2. This will become an ERROR, fix it manually! No shebang but executable: BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/cjk-gs-integrate/tools/release.sh is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/doc/generic/m-tx/buildzip.lua is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/doc/support/findhyph/findhyph.bat is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/doc/support/lua2dox/install.bat is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/context/perl/mptopdf.pl is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/context/stubs/install/first-setup.bat is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/context/stubs/setup/setuptex.bat is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/glossaries/makeglossaries.bat is executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit BUILDSTDERR: *** WARNING: ./usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/scripts/latexindent/
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts --- So... yeah. I don't want to do this, but someone needs to and I'd rather be on this end of the process than on your end of it. And I apologize in advance, but this is going to be a rambling set of commentary as I look at and test different things. Basically I'm going to take the attitude here that any improvement is just that. If I were more argumentative I would say that this is still not quite the right split, and that we'd all be happier if the four things which have to link against poppler were off on their own or that we should consider a "texlive critpath" which would contain just the things that have to be working in order to build the rest of the distro. But still, this is improvement; this package only has Source347: instead of Source7608: and you really can't argue with that. I'm also going to assume that for tex packaging, the existing texlive package can serve as a "reasonable" (if hilariously enormous) template. The licenses should all be correct (except for "foo"). You will need to add BuildRequires: gcc and probably gcc-c++ so that things will still work once they're pulled from the buildroot (assuming that happens) You can simply %undefine __brp_mangle_shebangs to get rid of that if you don't want it. Though it would be good to know why it's not wanted. You might want to fix the "License: foo" bit (line 23). I see you've done away with the AutoReqProv: lines which all of the -doc subpackages used to have. There are fewer scriptlets than I expected. There is work about to eliminate the need to call install-info, but of course that's not done yet. Without that you'd be down to the fmutil.cnf manipulation. I wonder if there's a better way to handle that, since fmtutil is supposed to handle reading multiple fmtutil.cnf files now. If it could just process a directory inclusion then none of that mess would be necessary. Probably not worth the effort. You can use %_rpmmacrodir instead of defining %macrosdir yourself. If you need EPEL compatibility, let me know and I'll get it in epel-rpm-macros as well. I note that many of the packages have had very significant changes in what they provide. For example, texlive-fontinst (chosen completely at random) went from: tex(bbox.sty) = 2016 tex(cfntinst.sty) = 2016 tex(csc2x.tex) = 2016 tex(csckrn2x.tex) = 2016 tex(finstmsc.sty) = 2016 tex(fontdoc.sty) = 2016 tex(fontinst.sty) = 2016 tex(multislot.sty) = 2016 tex(osf2x.tex) = 2016 tex(xfntinst.sty) = 2016 tex-fontinst = 2016 texlive-fontinst = 6:svn40768-40.fc28.2 to: tex(bbox.sty) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(cfntinst.sty) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(csc2x.tex) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(csckrn2x.tex) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(finstmsc.sty) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(fontdoc.sty) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(fontinst.sty) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(multislot.sty) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(osf2x.tex) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex(xfntinst.sty) = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex-fontinst = 7:20170520-16.fc29 tex-fontinst-bin = 7:20170520-16.fc29 texlive-fontinst = 7:20170520-16.fc29 texlive-fontinst-bin = 7:20170520-16.fc29 texlive-fontinst-doc = 7:20170520-16.fc29 Now, the last five obviously aren't problematic. But I wonder if the others were intentional? The old package uses %tl_version for most of those provides. But in the new pacakge %tl_version is completely absent. %source_date would suffice but the versioning also grew %epoch and %release. I guess the question is whether those were intended to provide semantic data like "2016" or whether the intent was for them to carry the full package version. And looking at this texlive stuff makes me realize (again) that I could generate almost all of the subpackage declarations using RPM macros (with some lua code parsing the texlive.tlpdb file or something like it). This would eliminate the need to have a script generate things separately from the maintenance of the package. Might be an interesting exercise if you would like me to try. Anyway, that's about it for now. In general I don't think there's really anything to object to here, assuming you can stomach the "really huge package" concept. And even if you can't, it's certainly an improvement. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1549281] Review Request: texlive-base - TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
