Build rpm - extract source

[arnaud gaboury]

Here is part of my spec file:

-----------------------------------------------
Name: mattermost
Version: 3.4.0
Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Mattermost is an open source, self-hosted Slack-alternative
URL: http://www.mattermost.org
Source0:
https://releases.mattermost.com/%%7Bversion%7D/mattermost-%%7Bversion%7D-lin...
License: MIT
Group: System Environment/Daemons
........
%prep
%autosetup

---------------------------
Now testing:
$  fedpkg --dist f24 prep

leaves me with this error:  mattermost-3.4.0: No such file or directory
$ ls returns in fact mattermost. I guess the difference is due to untar.

How can I tell in my spec file that the source directory will be named
%{name} and not %{name}.%{version} ?

Then, I though the %autosetup macro would have download the source, which
is not the case. I need to run $ spectool -g *spec to get the source. Is it
the normal behavior?

Thank you for help.

[arnaud gaboury]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:47 PM arnaud gaboury 
wrote:
> Here is part of my spec file:
>
> Name: mattermost
> Version: 3.4.0
> Release: 1%{?dist}
> Summary: Mattermost is an open source, self-hosted Slack-alternative
> URL: http://www.mattermost.org
> Source0:
> https://releases.mattermost.com/%%7Bversion%7D/mattermost-%%7Bversion%7D-lin...
> License: MIT
> Group: System Environment/Daemons
> ........
> %prep
> %autosetup
>
> Now testing:
> $  fedpkg --dist f24 prep
>
> leaves me with this error:  mattermost-3.4.0: No such file or directory
> $ ls returns in fact mattermost. I guess the difference is due to untar.
>
> How can I tell in my spec file that the source directory will be named
> %{name} and not %{name}.%{version} ?

EDIT : In fact, the unpacked directory is called platform-release-3.4 when
the macro is looking for mattermost-3.4. I used this setup option:

%autosetup -n platform-release-3.4

but it doesn't solve my issue. I still get cd: mattermost-3.4: No such file
or directory

What is wrong ?
> Then, I though the %autosetup macro would have download the source, which
> is not the case. I need to run $ spectool -g *spec to get the source. Is it
> the normal behavior?
>
> Thank you for help.

[arnaud gaboury]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:11 PM arnaud gaboury 
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:47 PM arnaud gaboury 
> wrote:
>
> Here is part of my spec file:
>
> Name: mattermost
> Version: 3.4.0
> Release: 1%{?dist}
> Summary: Mattermost is an open source, self-hosted Slack-alternative
> URL: http://www.mattermost.org
> Source0:
> https://releases.mattermost.com/%%7Bversion%7D/mattermost-%%7Bversion%7D-lin...
> License: MIT
> Group: System Environment/Daemons
> ........
> %prep
> %autosetup
>
> Now testing:
> $  fedpkg --dist f24 prep
>
> leaves me with this error:  mattermost-3.4.0: No such file or directory
> $ ls returns in fact mattermost. I guess the difference is due to untar.
>
> How can I tell in my spec file that the source directory will be named
> %{name} and not %{name}.%{version} ?
>
> EDIT : In fact, the unpacked directory is called platform-release-3.4 when
> the macro is looking for mattermost-3.4. I used this setup option:
>
> %autosetup -n platform-release-3.4
>
> but it doesn't solve my issue. I still get cd: mattermost-3.4: No such
> file or directory
>
> What is wrong ?

NEW EDIT: the autosetup command as described above works indeed. The
culprit was a line before poorly commented by #, which in fact is not the
correct  way to comment  in spec file.
> Then, I though the %autosetup macro would have download the source, which
> is not the case. I need to run $ spectool -g *spec to get the source. Is it
> the normal behavior?
>
> Thank you for help.

[Ahmad Samir]

On 27 October 2016 at 14:28, arnaud gaboury  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:11 PM arnaud gaboury 
> wrote:
>
> NEW EDIT: the autosetup command as described above works indeed. The culprit
> was a line before poorly commented by #, which in fact is not the correct
> way to comment  in spec file.

AFAIK # at the beginning of a line denotes a comment in a spec; IIRC
an experienced packager once told me that when commenting rpm macros
that expand to multiple lines you need to separate the % from the
macro name, e.g.:
#% {macroname}

[arnaud gaboury]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:41 PM Ahmad Samir 
wrote:
> On 27 October 2016 at 14:28, arnaud gaboury 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:11 PM arnaud gaboury <[e-mail]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > NEW EDIT: the autosetup command as described above works indeed. The
>
> culprit
> > was a line before poorly commented by #, which in fact is not the correct
> > way to comment  in spec file.
>
> AFAIK # at the beginning of a line denotes a comment in a spec; IIRC
> an experienced packager once told me that when commenting rpm macros
> that expand to multiple lines you need to separate the % from the
> macro name, e.g.:
> #% {macroname}

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, I did forget this rule.
> --
> Ahmad Samir
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]