On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:29:42 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy > > Run through that, with the idea that the package has already been > published, we're just adding a little bit to it. Disregard most the stuff > about spec file changes, as we are trying to modify as little as possible. This is going into a wrong direction. Don't reinvent the wheel. That will result in learning from mistakes painfully. The build-system strictly requires a complete set of build requirements. Else the builds will fail, and that will slow down the release of updates. My advice: take the original spec file, and for the first legacy update, fix it where necessary and where it seems reasonable (small adjustments like "Copyright -> License" or an updated URL don't hurt anyone unless the packager starts to rearrange the order of lines in the spec). Don't change the indendation or regroup fields. A diff against the previous release should stay straight-forward and readable. But do add missing build requirements and fix obvious package bugs. Right now the "mc" update ticket contains src.rpms which don't build due to terribly incomplete build requirements. For example, on rh73 with the 6.legacy package you'll get: [...] /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -ldb1 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [plain-gmc] Error 1 [...] Missing buildrequires db1-devel, at least. Skimming over the build log, also missing seem to be "gettext, slang-devel, e2fsprogs-devel, pam-devel", probably more, and that check took me only a minute (?) after the test-build failed. It took longer to write this message. "Buildrequires: slang" is wrong and a slip on Red Hat's part. Further, potential missing buildrequires are ncurses-devel and libtermcap-devel (didn't look a 2nd time) based on what "rpm -qR mc" of Red Hat's binary rpm returns. --
