Hi, It's stated at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines: "MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built"
Is the same to exclude .la libtool archives that *remove" them? In other words is compliant a spec file if does that?
Thanks in advance!
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:41:07 -0300, Sergio wrote:
Hi, It's stated at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines: "MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built"
Is the same to exclude .la libtool archives that *remove" them? In other words is compliant a spec file if does that?
"rm" without "-f" and %exclude give the same result. Both fail the build, if the file to be deleted is not present in the %buildroot. You are free to choose either one.
You may also use "rm -f" (and derived commands) at end of %install to remove files, but that would not fail the build for files which have not been built anymore prior to their removal. It's the brute-force "delete if present, else don't care" removal of files from %buildroot.
Dear colleagues, please could you point me to some guideline with the correct procedure to fix broken dependencies / tag corrected source for some build?
One of my packages has got broken dependency for F15 (metagoofil). I have tried to fix it the same way as if I would be doing update, but this was probably not a right thing to do.
I am not sure what should be done with the new fedpkg / git tools to tag the right source for the right build.
Thank you Michal Ambroz
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:59:46 +0100 (CET), Michal wrote:
Dear colleagues, please could you point me to some guideline with the correct procedure to fix broken dependencies / tag corrected source for some build?
One of my packages has got broken dependency for F15 (metagoofil). I have tried to fix it the same way as if I would be doing update, but this was probably not a right thing to do.
Why not?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/metagoofil
The update there fixes the broken dep. You would need to push it to stable, though, so the F-15 Branched Report would no longer report the broken dep in the older package in F-15 Branched (i.e. development/15 + updates/15).
On 24/02/11 15:11, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:59:46 +0100 (CET), Michal wrote:
Dear colleagues, please could you point me to some guideline with the correct procedure to fix broken dependencies / tag corrected source for some build?
One of my packages has got broken dependency for F15 (metagoofil). I have tried to fix it the same way as if I would be doing update, but this was probably not a right thing to do.
Why not?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/metagoofil
The update there fixes the broken dep. You would need to push it to stable, though, so the F-15 Branched Report would no longer report the broken dep in the older package in F-15 Branched (i.e. development/15 + updates/15).
Nothing's (except alpha blockers that is) getting pushed to F-15 stable until after the alpha freeze, which I believe has just been extended by a week, so we'll have to put up with the F-15 broken dependency nagmails until then.
Paul.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:15:12 +0000, Paul wrote:
One of my packages has got broken dependency for F15 (metagoofil). I have tried to fix it the same way as if I would be doing update, but this was probably not a right thing to do.
Why not?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/metagoofil
The update there fixes the broken dep. You would need to push it to stable, though, so the F-15 Branched Report would no longer report the broken dep in the older package in F-15 Branched (i.e. development/15 + updates/15).
Nothing's (except alpha blockers that is) getting pushed to F-15 stable until after the alpha freeze, which I believe has just been extended by a week, so we'll have to put up with the F-15 broken dependency nagmails until then.
Okay. Still, "metagoofil" is on the list of "fixed packages" here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-February/097214.html
;-)
Thank you both guys. Michal Ambroz
< ------------ Původní zpráva ------------ < Od: Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com < Předmět: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Fixing broken dependencies < Datum: 24.2.2011 16:41:29 < ---------------------------------------- < On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:15:12 +0000, Paul wrote: < < > >> One of my packages has got broken dependency for F15 (metagoofil). < > >> I have tried to fix it the same way as if I would be doing update, but this < was probably not a right thing to do. < > >> < > > < > > Why not? < > > < > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/metagoofil < > > < > > The update there fixes the broken dep. You would need to push it to stable, < > > though, so the F-15 Branched Report would no longer report the broken dep < > > in the older package in F-15 Branched (i.e. development/15 + updates/15). < > < > Nothing's (except alpha blockers that is) getting pushed to F-15 stable < > until after the alpha freeze, which I believe has just been extended by < > a week, so we'll have to put up with the F-15 broken dependency nagmails < > until then. < < Okay. Still, "metagoofil" is on the list of "fixed packages" here: < http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-February/097214.html < < ;-) < -- < packaging mailing list < packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org < https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging < < <
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Michael Schwendt -
Michal Ambroz -
Paul Howarth -
Sergio Belkin