https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Bug ID: 1195375 Summary: Review Request: autoconf268 - autoconf 2.68 for epel6 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d.love@liverpool.ac.uk QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/autoconf268.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/autoconf268-2.68-1.el6.src.rpm Description: autoconf 2.68 for epel6 Fedora Account System Username: loveshack
This provides an updated autoconf for epel6 to support packaging things which need to use autoconf 2.68 after patching their configuration files, e.g. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174292. It's minimally modified from the RHEL autoconf-2.63 packaging, with names by analogy with cmake28 and autoconf213.
koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9037957
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1174292
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174292 [Bug 1174292] please update for EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orion@cora.nwra.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orion@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks for putting this together. First notes:
You should make use of the requires/provides filtering mechanism described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging_Autoprovides_and_Requires_Filte...
Drop %defattr()
No need for %clean or rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}, or BuildRoot.
Otherwise looks good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #2 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- I can change it if really necessary, but it has minimal changes from the RHEL source. Why is it worth the effort making it different (not a rhetorical question)? It seems more maintainable if anything to reflect the original.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Because this is a Fedora EPEL package, and I want it to conform to the Fedora EPEL guidelines and not have a bunch of old cruft in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #4 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- I made the changes, though I must say it seems at best a waste of effort. I didn't change the version for cosmetic spec mods.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Looks good, thanks. I would have preferred bumping release, but I think you're already aware of what a stickler I am.
One other suggestion:
%check # Test fails: 205: parallel autotest and signal handling make check VERBOSE=yes || :
this would allow the tests to be logged in the build but not break it.
But not a show stopper. APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #6 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- Thanks. I'll make the check change and bump the release. If there's good reason to update release numbers for spec changes in review, perhaps it could be added to the guidelines so it's not just a matter of judgement; I've seen cases where it wasn't done. I'll follow rules of course (preferably with mechanical support).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: autoconf268 Short Description: A GNU tool for automatically configuring source code Upstream URL: http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/ Owners: loveshack Branches: el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- autoconf268-2.68-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/autoconf268-2.68-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Well, it was nice thought:
autoreconf268: running: aclocal --force -I ../build-config/m4 -I ../vendor/common/build-config/m4 ../build-includes/common.m4:100: error: Libtool version 2.4 or higher is required
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #11 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #10)
Well, it was nice thought:
autoreconf268: running: aclocal --force -I ../build-config/m4 -I ../vendor/common/build-config/m4 ../build-includes/common.m4:100: error: Libtool version 2.4 or higher is required
I don't understand. That's not a problem with autoconf, just a requirement of a package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- We're going to need a libtool24 package then as well to make this useful. May want to test this out in a copr before going too far down this road.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
--- Comment #13 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #11)
I don't understand. That's not a problem with autoconf, just a requirement of a package.
Sorry, I realize it was in reference to #1174292, but I can do libtool if anything else needs it. It's a pity we can't just use the autotools SCL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- autoconf268-2.68-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |autoconf268-2.68-2.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-03-31 21:59:20
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- autoconf268-2.68-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla