EPEL5 version of epel-rpm-macros in testing

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

After some fun hacking and many, many complete rebuilds, I've built and
submitted for testing a version of epel-rpm-macros for EPEL5 which
removes the need for several pieces of RPM junk which have annoyed me
for many years now.

These macros do the following, entirely by "magic" without requiring the
use of any boilerplate or line noise:

*) Provide a BuildRoot: tag if one is not specified.  (The recommend value
   from the EPEL guidelines is used.)

*) Provide Group: tags for the main package and any subpackages which don't
   have one.  The value used is "Unspecified".

*) Automatically provide a %clean section.

*) Automatically delete the %buildroot at the beginning of %install.

*) Allow the use of %license in the %files section (maps to %doc as usual).

I found a better method for setting up %license which doesn't appear to
have the issues with %define vs. %global that the one I used in the
EPEL6 macros has.  I will probably revisit that at a later date, but
what's there is working.  The upside to this is that as far as I can
tell these macros introduce no build issues at all to the current EPEL5
package set.

I've found but one caveat: If the spec has a %clean section, it must
come before %files and after %description but not _immediately_ after
%description.  Otherwise, due to magic I used to add %clean, the
%contents of the existing %clean section will be appended to the
%description.  It's pretty weird, but unless the package completely
fails to follow the usual Fedora packaging conventions, things should be
OK.  rpmdiff is still running, but there are indeed a couple of packages
which do this.  I'll be fixing them up as I find them.

Please do test this out when it hits the testing repo (or pull it from
koji now).  Try cleaning some of the cruft out of a few of your EL5
packages and please let me know how it goes.  The sooner this can get to
stable and into the buildroot, the sooner I can move on to doing more
macro cleanup and %ifdef elimination.  (I think EL6 python macros will
come next.)

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/epel-rpm-macros-5-1
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=713474

 - J<

[Ding Yi Chen]

----- Original Message -----
>  After some fun hacking and many, many complete rebuilds, I've
> built and
>  submitted for testing a version of epel-rpm-macros for EPEL5 which
>  removes the need for several pieces of RPM junk which have annoyed me
>  for many years now.
>  
>  These macros do the following, entirely by "magic" without requiring the
>  use of any boilerplate or line noise:
>  
>  *) Provide a BuildRoot: tag if one is not specified.  (The recommend value
>     from the EPEL guidelines is used.)
>  
>  *) Provide Group: tags for the main package and any subpackages which don't
>     have one.  The value used is "Unspecified".
>  
>  *) Automatically provide a %clean section.
>  
>  *) Automatically delete the %buildroot at the beginning of %install.
>  
>  *) Allow the use of %license in the %files section (maps to %doc as usual). 
<snip>

Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to this change?

-- 
Ding-Yi Chen
Software Engineer
Globalization Group
DID: [phone]
Email: dchen(a)redhat.com

Red Hat, Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd
Level 1, 193 North Quay
Brisbane 4000
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Website: www.redhat.com

Red Hat, Inc.
Facebook: Red Hat APAC | Red Hat Japan | Red Hat Korea | JBoss APAC
Twitter: Red Hat APAC | Red Hat ANZ
LinkedIn: Red Hat APAC | JBoss APAC

[Orion Poplawski]

On 01/28/2016 12:02 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
>  ----- Original Message -----
> > After some fun hacking and many, many complete rebuilds, I've built and
> > submitted for testing a version of epel-rpm-macros for EPEL5 which
> > removes the need for several pieces of RPM junk which have annoyed me
> > for many years now.
> >
> > These macros do the following, entirely by "magic" without requiring the
> > use of any boilerplate or line noise:
> >
> > *) Provide a BuildRoot: tag if one is not specified.  (The recommend value
> >     from the EPEL guidelines is used.)
> >
> > *) Provide Group: tags for the main package and any subpackages which don't
> >     have one.  The value used is "Unspecified".
> >
> > *) Automatically provide a %clean section.
> >
> > *) Automatically delete the %buildroot at the beginning of %install.
> >
> > *) Allow the use of %license in the %files section (maps to %doc as usual).
>
>  <snip>
>
>  Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to this change?
>  
This gets dicey because rpmlint is a RHEL package, not EPEL.

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division                    FAX: [phone]
3380 Mitchell Lane                  orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301              http://www.cora.nwra.com

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 01/29/2016 04:41 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>  On 01/28/2016 12:02 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> After some fun hacking and many, many complete rebuilds, I've built and
> >> submitted for testing a version of epel-rpm-macros for EPEL5 which
> >> removes the need for several pieces of RPM junk which have annoyed me
> >> for many years now.
> >>
> >> These macros do the following, entirely by "magic" without requiring 
> >> the
> >> use of any boilerplate or line noise:
> >>
> >> *) Provide a BuildRoot: tag if one is not specified.  (The recommend 
> >> value
> >>     from the EPEL guidelines is used.)
> >>
> >> *) Provide Group: tags for the main package and any subpackages 
> >> which don't
> >>     have one.  The value used is "Unspecified".
> >>
> >> *) Automatically provide a %clean section.
> >>
> >> *) Automatically delete the %buildroot at the beginning of %install.
> >>
> >> *) Allow the use of %license in the %files section (maps to %doc as 
> >> usual).
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to this change?
> >
>
>  This gets dicey because rpmlint is a RHEL package, not EPEL.
>  
It cannot be found in 
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Client/en/os/SRPMS/ so no, 
it's not a RHEL package.
It has always been in EPEL


wolfy, former maintainer of rpmlint for EL5 and EL6


-- 
      Manuel Wolfshant       linux registered user #131416
         IT manager    NoBug Consulting SRL
   A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
> >A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> >>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

[Dave Johansen]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro&gt;
wrote:

>  On 01/29/2016 04:41 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> > On 01/28/2016 12:02 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >>> After some fun hacking and many, many complete rebuilds, I've built and
> >>> submitted for testing a version of epel-rpm-macros for EPEL5 which
> >>> removes the need for several pieces of RPM junk which have annoyed me
> >>> for many years now.
> >>>
> >>> These macros do the following, entirely by "magic" without
> requiring the
> >>> use of any boilerplate or line noise:
> >>>
> >>> *) Provide a BuildRoot: tag if one is not specified.  (The recommend
> >>> value
> >>>     from the EPEL guidelines is used.)
> >>>
> >>> *) Provide Group: tags for the main package and any subpackages which
> >>> don't
> >>>     have one.  The value used is "Unspecified".
> >>>
> >>> *) Automatically provide a %clean section.
> >>>
> >>> *) Automatically delete the %buildroot at the beginning of %install.
> >>>
> >>> *) Allow the use of %license in the %files section (maps to %doc as
> >>> usual).
> >>>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to this change?
> >>
> >>
> > This gets dicey because rpmlint is a RHEL package, not EPEL.
> >
> > It cannot be found in
>  ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Client/en/os/SRPMS/ so no,
>  it's not a RHEL package.
>  It has always been in EPEL
>
>
>  wolfy, former maintainer of rpmlint for EL5 and EL6
>  
For EL5, yes it's an EPEL package, but for EL6 and EL7, it's in the base OS:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Workstation/en/os/SRPMS/rpm...
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!rpmlint/refs!heads!c7

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 01/29/2016 05:00 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
>  On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Manuel Wolfshant 
>  <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>      On 01/29/2016 04:41 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
>          On 01/28/2016 12:02 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
>
>
>
>              ----- Original Message -----
>              [...]
>              <snip>
>
>              Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to this change?
>
>
>          This gets dicey because rpmlint is a RHEL package, not EPEL.
>
>      It cannot be found in
>      ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Client/en/os/SRPMS/
>      so no, it's not a RHEL package.
>      It has always been in EPEL
>
>
>      wolfy, former maintainer of rpmlint for EL5 and EL6
>
>
>  For EL5, yes it's an EPEL package, but for EL6 and EL7, it's in the 
>  base OS:
>
> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Workstation/en/os/SRPMS/rpm...
>  https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!rpmlint/refs!heads!c7 
>  <https://git.centos.org/log/rpms%21rpmlint/refs%21heads%21c7> 
The original question was "Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to 
this change?".

[Dave Johansen]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro&gt;
wrote:

>  On 01/29/2016 05:00 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
>
>  On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Manuel Wolfshant <
>  <[e-mail]&gt;wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro&gt; wrote:
>
> > On 01/29/2016 04:41 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/28/2016 12:02 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> [...]
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to this change?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> This gets dicey because rpmlint is a RHEL package, not EPEL.
> >>
> >> It cannot be found in
> > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Client/en/os/SRPMS/ so no,
> > it's not a RHEL package.
> > It has always been in EPEL
> >
> >
> > wolfy, former maintainer of rpmlint for EL5 and EL6
> >
>
>  For EL5, yes it's an EPEL package, but for EL6 and EL7, it's in the base
>  OS:
>
>
> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Workstation/en/os/SRPMS/rpm...
>  https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!rpmlint/refs!heads!c7
>
>
>  The original question was "Any ETA on rpmlint EL5 update according to
>  this change?".
>  
Sorry, I was just trying to point out that fixing the version of rpmlint in
EL5 doesn't fully resolve the problem, because the version in EL6 also
warns about at least some of the "issues" that are trying to be cleaned up
with this.

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "OP" == Orion Poplawski
> <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; writes: 
OP> This gets dicey because rpmlint is a RHEL package, not EPEL.

I don't really think it matters.  We fix what we can fix, and file bugs
for what only Red Hat can fix.  If they don't fix their bugs, there
isn't much we can do about it.

I'm more interested in what rpmlint in Fedora says about EP5/6 specs
that drop things like %defattr (which absolutely is not needed) or one
of the bits this macros package renders unnecessary.  It's on my list of
things to test, but if someone else wants to have a go then feel free to
tell me how it works.

 - J<