help with first package (extractpdfmark, bug 1520922)

[Federico Bruni]

Hi all

I've recently submitted my first package here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922

I need some pointer to figure out how to solve a few issues highlighted 
by the reviewer. There's a lot of information in Fedora wiki, but it's 
quite overwhelming. I've read a lot, but cannot find the information I 
need.

The problems still to be solved are:

[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: 
/usr/lib/.build-id(iputils,
     efivar-libs, gd, gc, libtomcrypt, gdbm, gpgme, 
rpm-plugin-selinux,[... cut]

[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

BTW, rpmlint does not spot these errors.
So I've tried fedora-review and run this command in my RPM package 
directory:

fedora-review --define DISTTAG=fc27 -p -n extractpdfmark

and I see that above problems are set to "manual review needed". So the 
errors were spotted by the reviewer, not by any tool.

Back to above problems, the errors related to the libraries are 
probably about the .build-id directory, but I cannot figure out what 
should I do.

$ rpm -ql x86_64/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
/usr/bin/extractpdfmark
/usr/lib/.build-id
/usr/lib/.build-id/41
/usr/lib/.build-id/41/8cd205d31cf37c25cec9711715265e6c00726b
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.ja.md
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.md
/usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark
/usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark/COPYING
/usr/share/man/man1/extractpdfmark.1.gz

Thanks in advance
Federico

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:02:54 +0100, Federico Bruni wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922
> The problems still to be solved are:
>
> [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>      Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: 
> /usr/lib/.build-id(iputils,
>      efivar-libs, gd, gc, libtomcrypt, gdbm, gpgme, 
> rpm-plugin-selinux,[... cut]

It is a bad sign, if someone only throws in the output of the fedora-review
tool without adding any comments.

As helpful as the checks from that tool are, there may be false positives.
I would have expected the reviewer to be more explicit and confirm whether
the tool is right.

It doesn't handle /usr/lib/.build-id yet.
> [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

The reviewer should give a rationale.

You could guess and check build.log compiler output whether it's not
using Fedora's global optflags (such as can be seen in "rpm -E %optflags")
or whether it's overriding the flags somehow.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

The reviewer should be more explicit and tell details.
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

This is just a catch-all to set depending on whether any issues have
been found. Often enough reviewers set it to [X] even for much larger
packages, but haven't found all issues, because it can be a Herculean task
to check a package with regard to everything covered by the guidelines.
> %install
> rm -rf %{buildroot}

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
> %license COPYING
>
> %doc README.* COPYING

If including the file COPYING as a licence file already, duplicating
it also as a separate doc file isn't necessary and should not be done.

[Federico Bruni]

Hey Michael

Many thanks for your feedback!

Il giorno gio 25 gen 2018 alle 11:57, Michael Schwendt 
 ha scritto:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:02:54 +0100, Federico Bruni wrote:
> > [...]
> > %install
> >  rm -rf %{buildroot}
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

Yep, I know, I fixed that.
> > %license COPYING
> >
> > %doc README.* COPYING
>
> If including the file COPYING as a licence file already, duplicating
> it also as a separate doc file isn't necessary and should not be done.

I must duplicate it, since upstream is copying that file in the doc dir:

[extractpdfmark-1.0.2]$ grep COPYING Makefile
    $(srcdir)/config.h.in $(dist_doc_DATA) COPYING compile \
dist_doc_DATA = README.md README.ja.md COPYING

So if I remove it from %doc, I'll get an error:

error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING

Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under 
/usr/share/licenses?

[Paul Howarth]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:52:57 +0100
Federico Bruni  wrote:
> Hey Michael
>
> Many thanks for your feedback!
>
> Il giorno gio 25 gen 2018 alle 11:57, Michael Schwendt 
>  ha scritto:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:02:54 +0100, Federico Bruni wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > %install
> > >  rm -rf %{buildroot}
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
>
> Yep, I know, I fixed that.
> > > %license COPYING
> > >
> > > %doc README.* COPYING
> >
> > If including the file COPYING as a licence file already, duplicating
> > it also as a separate doc file isn't necessary and should not be
> > done.
>
> I must duplicate it, since upstream is copying that file in the doc
> dir:
>
> [extractpdfmark-1.0.2]$ grep COPYING Makefile
>    $(srcdir)/config.h.in $(dist_doc_DATA) COPYING compile \
> dist_doc_DATA = README.md README.ja.md COPYING
>
> So if I remove it from %doc, I'll get an error:
>
> error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>    /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
>     Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>    /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
>
> Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under 
> /usr/share/licenses?

You could remove the copy in /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark at the end
of %install to avoid this problem.

Paul.

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno gio 1 feb 2018 alle 10:06, Paul Howarth  
ha scritto:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:52:57 +0100
> Federico Bruni  wrote:
> > > > %license COPYING
> > > >
> > > > %doc README.* COPYING
> > >
> > > If including the file COPYING as a licence file already,
> >
> > duplicating
> > > it also as a separate doc file isn't necessary and should not be
> > > done.
> >
> > I must duplicate it, since upstream is copying that file in the doc
> >  dir:
> >
> > [extractpdfmark-1.0.2]$ grep COPYING Makefile
> >    $(srcdir)/config.h.in $(dist_doc_DATA) COPYING compile \
> >  dist_doc_DATA = README.md README.ja.md COPYING
> >
> > So if I remove it from %doc, I'll get an error:
> >
> > error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> >     /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> >      Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> >     /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> >
> > Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under
> >  /usr/share/licenses?
>
> You could remove the copy in /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark at the end
> of %install to avoid this problem.

Good idea, but I cannot make it work. I've tried this first:

%install
%make_install
rm -f %{_docdir}/extractpdfmark/COPYING

But it seems that it tries to remove the file in my system instead of 
that in chroot?

make[1]: Leaving directory 
'/home/fede/RPM/extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark-1.0.2'
+ rm -f /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
rm: cannot remove '/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING': Permission 
denied

I tried also the %post command, but for some reason it's not executed.
I cannot figure out why.

%post
rm %{_docdir}/extractpdfmark/COPYING

I've tried "rm" and "/usr/bin/rm".
I've placed the %post after %install first and then after %files.
But the file is not removed and I don't see any error message in the 
log.

I cannot find any good tutorial on this subject. If you have links to 
suggest please let me know.

Thanks
Federico

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno ven 2 feb 2018 alle 7:58, Federico Bruni  
ha scritto:
> I tried also the %post command, but for some reason it's not executed.
> I cannot figure out why.

Sorry, I should wait before writing stupid things.
%post contains commands to be executed after the installation of RPM 
package, not after 'make install'.

In this case I need a rm command in the %install section.

Is this a good reference to study?
http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-scripts.html

[Alex Cobb]

Hi Federico,

I'm also a beginner, but maybe I can help.

On 2 February 2018 at 14:58, Federico Bruni  wrote:
> Il giorno gio 1 feb 2018 alle 10:06, Paul Howarth  ha
> scritto:
> > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:52:57 +0100
> > Federico Bruni  wrote:
> > > > > %license COPYING
> > > > >
> > > > > %doc README.* COPYING
> > > >
> > > > If including the file COPYING as a licence file already, duplicating
> > > > it also as a separate doc file isn't necessary and should not be
> > > > done.
> > >
> > > I must duplicate it, since upstream is copying that file in the doc
> > >  dir:
> > >
> > > [extractpdfmark-1.0.2]$ grep COPYING Makefile
> > >         $(srcdir)/config.h.in $(dist_doc_DATA) COPYING compile \
> > >  dist_doc_DATA = README.md README.ja.md COPYING
> > >
> > > So if I remove it from %doc, I'll get an error:
> > >
> > > error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> > >     /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> > >      Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> > >     /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> > >
> > > Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under
> > >  /usr/share/licenses?
> >
> > You could remove the copy in /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark at the end
> > of %install to avoid this problem.
>
> Good idea, but I cannot make it work. I've tried this first:
>
> %install
> %make_install
> rm -f %{_docdir}/extractpdfmark/COPYING
>
> But it seems that it tries to remove the file in my system instead of that
> in chroot?

Try
rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/extractpdfmark/COPYING

During the %install phase, %make_install should be "installing" stuff
into subdirectories of %{buildroot} (which lives inside a directory
called BUILDROOT, sister to SPECS).  %make_install shouldn't be able
to write anything into %{_docdir} itself (usually /usr/share/doc),
because you are not root (which is good).
> I cannot find any good tutorial on this subject. If you have links to
> suggest please let me know.

Old as it is, I found Maximum RPM still useful:
http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/
though there are some conventions / best practices that have changed,
it is still a good tutorial.

Besides that, the Fedora packaging guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
and the howto on the wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
In particular, for this issue, scroll down to "Macros", or see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros

Best

Alex

[Federico Bruni]

Many thanks Alex!

Il giorno ven 2 feb 2018 alle 9:59, Alex Cobb  
ha scritto:
> > Good idea, but I cannot make it work. I've tried this first:
> >
> > %install
> >  %make_install
> >  rm -f %{_docdir}/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> >
> > But it seems that it tries to remove the file in my system instead 
> > of that
> >  in chroot?
>
> Try
> rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/extractpdfmark/COPYING

%{buildroot} helped a lot, but this is not working yet.
This is the tail of the log:

Executing(%license): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.hRFWzw
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark
+ cd extractpdfmark-1.0.2
+ 
LICENSEDIR=/home/fede/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark
+ export LC_ALL=C
+ LC_ALL=C
+ export LICENSEDIR
+ /usr/bin/mkdir -p 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark
+ cp -pr COPYING 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark
+ exit 0
    File must begin with "/": rm
    File must begin with "/": -f

RPM build errors:
Could not execute local: rpmbuild --define '_sourcedir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_specdir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_builddir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_srcrpmdir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_rpmdir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define 'dist .fc27' 
--define 'fedora 27' --eval '%undefine rhel' --define 'fc27 1' -ba 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec | tee 
.build-1.0.2-1.fc27.log

[Federico Bruni]

Forget my last email. Problem when you do things in a tremendous 
hurry...

The build completes fine, but the file is not removed:

$ rpm -ql x86_64/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
/usr/bin/extractpdfmark
/usr/lib/.build-id
/usr/lib/.build-id/a8
/usr/lib/.build-id/a8/d7b8ff35818ca4ddcc3b6856f44dcb55905b75
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.ja.md
/usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.md
/usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark
/usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark/COPYING
/usr/share/man/man1/extractpdfmark.1.gz

See attached log file.
I cannot see the rm command at the end of the %install section.
Why is it ignored?

[Björn Persson]

Federico Bruni wrote:
> The build completes fine, but the file is not removed:
>
> $ rpm -ql x86_64/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
> /usr/bin/extractpdfmark
> /usr/lib/.build-id
> /usr/lib/.build-id/a8
> /usr/lib/.build-id/a8/d7b8ff35818ca4ddcc3b6856f44dcb55905b75
> /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark
> /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.ja.md
> /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.md
> /usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark
> /usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> /usr/share/man/man1/extractpdfmark.1.gz

Is this the spec you're working on?

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/
fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684039-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec

It contains these lines:

%license COPYING
%doc README.* COPYING

The file is duplicated because you list it twice, both as a license file and 
as a documentation file. Just remove it from the %doc line, and it will 
disappear from the documentation directory. You won't need to delete the file 
if you don't add it in the first place.

And next time you need help, ask on the devel list. The packaging list is 
where we discuss changes to the policies on how packages shall be made.

Björn Persson

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 0:31, Björn Persson 
 ha scritto:
> Federico Bruni wrote:
> > The build completes fine, but the file is not removed:
> >
> > $ rpm -ql x86_64/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
> >  /usr/bin/extractpdfmark
> >  /usr/lib/.build-id
> >  /usr/lib/.build-id/a8
> >  /usr/lib/.build-id/a8/d7b8ff35818ca4ddcc3b6856f44dcb55905b75
> >  /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark
> >  /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> >  /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.ja.md
> >  /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/README.md
> >  /usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark
> >  /usr/share/licenses/extractpdfmark/COPYING
> >  /usr/share/man/man1/extractpdfmark.1.gz
>
> Is this the spec you're working on?
>
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684039-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec

That's an old version. The most recent is here:
https://pagure.io/rpm-extractpdfmark/blob/master/f/extractpdfmark.spec

but it still contains below lines...
> It contains these lines:
>
> %license COPYING
> %doc README.* COPYING
>
> The file is duplicated because you list it twice, both as a license 
> file and
> as a documentation file. Just remove it from the %doc line, and it 
> will
> disappear from the documentation directory. You won't need to delete 
> the file
> if you don't add it in the first place.

I know. Two days ago I wrote:
> I must duplicate it, since upstream is copying that file in the doc 
> dir:
>
> [extractpdfmark-1.0.2]$ grep COPYING Makefile
>    $(srcdir)/config.h.in $(dist_doc_DATA) COPYING compile \
> dist_doc_DATA = README.md README.ja.md COPYING
>
> So if I remove it from %doc, I'll get an error:
>
> error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>   /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
>    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>   /usr/share/doc/extractpdfmark/COPYING
>
> Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under 
> /usr/share/licenses?

And someone suggested that I could just delete the file after the 
installation.
You'd rather go with asking upstream to fix it (or provide a patch to 
the Makefile)?
> And next time you need help, ask on the devel list. The packaging 
> list is
> where we discuss changes to the policies on how packages shall be 
> made.

Ok, I see.
I was subscribed to devel, then I unsubscribed due to the high traffic.

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 8:33, Federico Bruni  
ha scritto:
> > Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under 
> > /usr/share/licenses?
>
> And someone suggested that I could just delete the file after the 
> installation.
> You'd rather go with asking upstream to fix it (or provide a patch to 
> the Makefile)?

Probably I'd better add a patch to the spec before the %build

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 8:47, Federico Bruni  
ha scritto:
> Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 8:33, Federico Bruni 
>  ha scritto:
> > > Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under 
> > > /usr/share/licenses?
> >
> > And someone suggested that I could just delete the file after the 
> > installation.
> > You'd rather go with asking upstream to fix it (or provide a patch 
> > to the Makefile)?
>
> Probably I'd better add a patch to the spec before the %build

I see that this is also what Debian packager did...
But there's something wrong with my patch file. Can you help? patch 
file must be generated with `diff -u`, correct? No way to use `git 
format-patch`?

# ERROR
$ fedpkg --release f27 local
sources file doesn't exist. Source files download skipped.

Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GzgKJM
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark
+ cd /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark
+ rm -rf extractpdfmark-1.0.2
+ /usr/bin/gzip -dc 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark-1.0.2.tar.gz
+ /usr/bin/tar -xof -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd extractpdfmark-1.0.2
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ /usr/bin/cat 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark/exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch
+ /usr/bin/patch -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch
+ echo 'Patch #0 (exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch):'
Patch #0 (exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch):
+ /usr/bin/patch --no-backup-if-mismatch -p0 --fuzz=0
patching file Makefile.am
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file Makefile.am.rej
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GzgKJM (%prep)

RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GzgKJM (%prep)
Could not execute local: rpmbuild --define '_sourcedir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_specdir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_builddir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_srcrpmdir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_rpmdir 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define 'dist .fc27' 
--define 'fedora 27' --eval '%undefine rhel' --define 'fc27 1' -ba 
/home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec | tee 
.build-1.0.2-1.fc27.log

# CHANGE TO THE SPEC FILE

$ git diff
diff --git a/extractpdfmark.spec b/extractpdfmark.spec
index 576614f..8b4d4c2 100644
--- a/extractpdfmark.spec
+++ b/extractpdfmark.spec
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ License:        GPLv3+
 URL:            https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/
 Source0:        
https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/releases/download/v%%7Bversion%7D...

+Patch0:         exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch
+
 BuildRequires:  automake gettext-devel poppler-devel

%description
@@ -39,6 +41,7 @@ PDF. By using this you can get the small PDF files 
that have preserved them.

%prep
 %autosetup
+%patch0 -p0

%build

# PATCH FILE
$ cat exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch
--- Makefile.am.orig	2018-02-03 09:49:54.817154170 +0100
+++ Makefile.am	2018-02-03 09:50:21.210678718 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 SUBDIRS = src man test

-dist_doc_DATA = README.md README.ja.md COPYING
+dist_doc_DATA = README.md
 EXTRA_DIST = autogen.sh

ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4

[Marcin Dulak]

The patch does not apply since it has been already applied by %autosetup.
If you really prefer going the patch way, just reuse the debian patch -
don't even change a name of it.

Marcin

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Federico Bruni  wrote:
> Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 8:47, Federico Bruni 
> ha scritto:
> > Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 8:33, Federico Bruni 
> > ha scritto:
> > > > Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under
> > > > /usr/share/licenses?
> > >
> > > And someone suggested that I could just delete the file after the
> > > installation.
> > > You'd rather go with asking upstream to fix it (or provide a patch to
> > > the Makefile)?
> >
> > Probably I'd better add a patch to the spec before the %build
>
> I see that this is also what Debian packager did...
> But there's something wrong with my patch file. Can you help? patch file
> must be generated with `diff -u`, correct? No way to use `git format-patch`?
>
> # ERROR
> $ fedpkg --release f27 local
> sources file doesn't exist. Source files download skipped.
>
> Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GzgKJM
> umask 022
> cd /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark
> cd /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark
> rm -rf extractpdfmark-1.0.2
> /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extr
>
> actpdfmark/extractpdfmark-1.0.2.tar.gz
> /usr/bin/tar -xof -
> STATUS=0
> '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
> cd extractpdfmark-1.0.2
> /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
> /usr/bin/cat /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark/exclude-some-docs-
>
> from-install.patch
> /usr/bin/patch -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch
> echo 'Patch #0 (exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch):'
>
> Patch #0 (exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch):
> /usr/bin/patch --no-backup-if-mismatch -p0 --fuzz=0
>
> patching file Makefile.am
> Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n]
> Apply anyway? [n]
> Skipping patch.
> 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file Makefile.am.rej
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GzgKJM (%prep)
>
> RPM build errors:
>    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GzgKJM (%prep)
> Could not execute local: rpmbuild --define '_sourcedir
> /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_specdir
> /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_builddir
> /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_srcrpmdir
> /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define '_rpmdir
> /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark' --define 'dist .fc27' --define
> 'fedora 27' --eval '%undefine rhel' --define 'fc27 1' -ba
> /home/fede/rpmbuild/SPECS/extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec | tee
> .build-1.0.2-1.fc27.log
>
> # CHANGE TO THE SPEC FILE
>
> $ git diff
> diff --git a/extractpdfmark.spec b/extractpdfmark.spec
> index 576614f..8b4d4c2 100644
> --- a/extractpdfmark.spec
> +++ b/extractpdfmark.spec
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ License:        GPLv3+
> URL:            https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/
> Source0:        https://github.com/trueroad/ex
> tractpdfmark/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
> +Patch0:         exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch
>
> BuildRequires:  automake gettext-devel poppler-devel
>
> %description
> @@ -39,6 +41,7 @@ PDF. By using this you can get the small PDF files that
> have preserved them.
>
> %prep
> %autosetup
> +%patch0 -p0
>
> %build
>
> # PATCH FILE
> $ cat exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch
> --- Makefile.am.orig    2018-02-03 09:49:54.817154170 +0100
> +++ Makefile.am 2018-02-03 09:50:21.210678718 +0100
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> SUBDIRS = src man test
>
> -dist_doc_DATA = README.md README.ja.md COPYING
> +dist_doc_DATA = README.md
> EXTRA_DIST = autogen.sh
>
> ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4
>
> packaging mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Marcin Dulak]

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Federico Bruni  wrote:
> Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 8:33, Federico Bruni 
> ha scritto:
> > > Should I ask upstream to fix it and put COPYING under
> > > /usr/share/licenses?
> >
> > And someone suggested that I could just delete the file after the
> > installation.
> > You'd rather go with asking upstream to fix it (or provide a patch to the
> > Makefile)?
> Probably I'd better add a patch to the spec before the %build

I've added a comment directly in your review request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922

Marcin
> packaging mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Björn Persson]

Federico Bruni wrote:
> I know. Two days ago I wrote:
> > I must duplicate it, since upstream is copying that file in the doc 
> > dir:

OK, then you need to delete the file after %make_install, and then also not 
add it again in the %files section.

I can't tell what went wrong as I don't know exactly what the spec file looked 
like in each of your attempts, but the attached patch makes it work for me.
> You'd rather go with asking upstream to fix it?

There isn't really any obviously better choice to make upstream as long as 
there is no installdir in the GNU Coding Standards.
> I was subscribed to devel, then I unsubscribed due to the high traffic.

Yes, it is a high-traffic list. A good email client is necessary to cope with 
it.

Björn Persson

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno sab 3 feb 2018 alle 18:24, Björn Persson 
 ha scritto:
> Federico Bruni wrote:
> > I know. Two days ago I wrote:
> > > I must duplicate it, since upstream is copying that file in the
> >
> > doc
> > > dir:
>
> OK, then you need to delete the file after %make_install, and then 
> also not
> add it again in the %files section.

I see, I left it in %files...
> I can't tell what went wrong as I don't know exactly what the spec 
> file looked
> like in each of your attempts, but the attached patch makes it work 
> for me.

Indeed, it works.
Many thanks, I'll submit the final version soon.