9.08.2019 22:10 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:12 AM Alexander Ploumistos > <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > All the patches we carried were merged back in the latest upstream > > version (0.20.1), but when I took a stab at it, I got a lot of errors > > about the variable types and I did not know how to proceed. I tried this as well and stumbled upon this bug: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55356 > Alexander, try the attached spec file. It leads to a successful build > for me. (Sorry for doing this in email, but I'm currently in a place > where I can't make git pull requests.) It may need a little tweaking > still, and feel free to trim my verbose changelog entry if you decide > to use any part of it. :-) I am not Alexander but since I've already started working on this I think I can take a look. Your spec file looks mostly good. I have some doubts which may be completely wrong (I have never looked at the internals of gettext before) but just in case here we go: > %bcond_with jar > %bcond_with java > Before Jens' commit there was also a line: %bcond_without check If you remove it you enable the check phase unconditionally. > [...] > License: GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and GFDL GFDL is a new thing here, I guess the public announce of the license change will be needed. > Source: https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gettext/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz Do we need to change ftp to https? > # ensure 'ARCHIVE_FORMAT=dirxz' > BuildRequires: xz "BuildRequires: chrpath" removed here, really no longer needed? > # for documentation > BuildRequires: texlive-dvips > BuildRequires: texinfo-tex It worked for me without these packages although the results might have been different due of that. > BuildRequires: libacl-devel Same here. > # for the tests > BuildRequires: glibc-langpack-de > BuildRequires: glibc-langpack-en > BuildRequires: glibc-langpack-fa > BuildRequires: glibc-langpack-fr > BuildRequires: glibc-langpack-ja > BuildRequires: glibc-langpack-tr > BuildRequires: glibc-langpack-zh Good point. > %package devel > Summary: Development files for %{name} > # autopoint is GPLv3+ > # libasprintf is LGPLv2+ > # libgettextpo is GPLv3+ > License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and GFDL A comment why GFDL has been added here would be helpful. Maybe it is not needed here? > %package -n libtextstyle > Summary: Text styling library > License: GPLv3+ > [...] Looks great. Are the licenses correct? > # Eliminate hardcoded rpaths; workaround libtool reordering > -Wl,--as-needed > # after all the libraries. > sed -e 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' \ > -e 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' \ > -e 's|CC=.g..|& -Wl,--as-needed|' \ > -i $(find . -name libtool) Is this the reason why chrpath is no longer needed? > %check > # this takes quite a lot of time to run Previously the %check was conditional (with "%if %{with check}"). See also my comment on top. > %{_bindir}/envsubst > %{_bindir}/gettext > %{_bindir}/gettext.sh > %{_bindir}/msgattrib > %{_bindir}/msgcat > %{_bindir}/msgcmp > %{_bindir}/msgcomm > %{_bindir}/msgconv > %{_bindir}/msgen > %{_bindir}/msgexec > %{_bindir}/msgfilter > %{_bindir}/msgfmt > %{_bindir}/msggrep > %{_bindir}/msginit > %{_bindir}/msgmerge > %{_bindir}/msgunfmt > %{_bindir}/msguniq > %{_bindir}/ngettext > %{_bindir}/recode-sr-latin > %{_bindir}/xgettext Is it OK to list all these files explicitly? > %files -n libtextstyle-devel > %{_docdir}/libtextstyle/ In other subpackages the documentation (also in HTML format) is moved to a directory htmldoc (although I am not sure why). > %changelog > * Fri Aug 9 2019 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.20.1-1 > - update to 0.20.1 release, all patches upstreamed It would be nice to mention the bug report rhbz#1708013. Also see this comment which suggests adding an upstream patch: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708013#c2 Regards, Rafal _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
