[Bug 751411] Review Request: bash-modules - Modules for bash

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751411

--- Comment #2 from Volodymyr M. Lisivka <vlisivka at gmail.com> 2011-11-07 09:22:47 EST ---
I am new to Fedora project. My page:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/vlisivka .

Spec file updated and package is rebuilt using Koji, see:

https://trac.assembla.com/bash-modules/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/bash-modules.spec

https://trac.assembla.com/bash-modules/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/bash-modules-1.0.8-3.fc15.src.rpm

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3494475


> - use global instead of define:

I eliminated %define completely in current version.

I use my own versioning scheme to automate package versioning
(SVN_RELEASE-RPM_RELEASE) on large projects with hundreds of packages developed
by tens of developers. It uses maximum value of all file revisions in package
directory in Subversion repository, thus version automatically bumps up when
(and only when) a file is modified in this package source directory. This
allows to automatically and determinately increase version every time when
underlying file of package is changed, including it spec file.

Can I use this versioning schema for packages in Fedora or I will need to
change it to fit Fedora?

> - How did you generate the source?

I use my own build system for my projects, which builds binary packages using
"rpmbuid -tb" or "rpmbuild -ts" and mock. Older packages on
http://trac.assembla.com/bash-modules were generated by my build system on my
home notebook with F14. Source package in koji was regenerated manually on my
work computer with F15.

> - What version of LGPL is this? LGPLv2+?

I put COPYING.GPLv2 and COPYING.LGPL-2.1 license files into sources tarball. I
also put following notice at top of each source file:

bash-modules is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2.1 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

I hope this mean that these files are available under terms of LGPLv2.1+.

> - defattr looks odd and is not needed in Fedora (in el5 and below, if you want
  to branch for it)

I want to promote my package to EPEL5+ and Fedora14+. Should I remove %defattr
and state attribute of each file explicitly?

> The %changelog is missing. Please add a changelog everytime you change
something

OK, I will use rpmdev-bumpspec in future. Just discovered it. :-)

However, rpmdev-bumpspec eats "%" in "Release:        3%{?dist}" in my case, so
rpbuild cannot build spec file modified by rpmdev-bumpspec. :-/

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.