[Bug 905255] Review Request: open-vm-tools - Open Virtual Machine Tools

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255

--- Comment #42 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> docdir handling seems a bit unothodox, but if it works then
> it's fine.

Me too, I don't really like it, and it doesn't work for the devel package, even
if you change the directory where --docdir points to. Seems to work fine if you
include the docs in the main package.

Please apply the following patch, it simplifies the docs packaging and removes
another %exclude from the file lists.

--- open-vm-tools.spec.old    2013-04-11 13:24:04.988138217 +0200
+++ open-vm-tools.spec    2013-04-11 13:24:18.796410870 +0200
@@ -99,8 +99,7 @@
 %configure \
     --without-kernel-modules \
     --disable-static \
-    --enable-docs \
-    --docdir=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-devel-%{version}/
+    --enable-docs
 make %{?_smp_mflags}

 %install
@@ -108,7 +107,8 @@
 make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}

 # Remove unnecessary .la files
-rm %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/*.la
+find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete
+rm -fr %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}

 %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 7

@@ -200,7 +200,6 @@
 %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins
 %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/common
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/common/*.so
-%exclude %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/common/*.la
 %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/vmsvc
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/vmsvc/*.so
 %{_sbindir}/mount.vmhgfs
@@ -221,7 +220,7 @@

 %files devel
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc
+%doc docs/api/build/*
 %{_includedir}/vmGuestLib/
 %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc
 %{_libdir}/libguestlib.so

> My personal preference would be to remove the conditions on
> different versions of Fedora/RHEL and just have a separate spec
> file for each branch, which would also allow the spec file to
> be modernized for Fedora.  However this is entirely up to the
> preferences of the packager/maintainer.

I have the exact opposite feeling regarding this, if I mantain more branches
and there's no reason that they should not be kept in sync I prefer to have
them merged with master so I can apply/push the same fix.

The Fedora 17 blocks will go away with the release of Fedora 19 in a few
months.

But since I will probably be the one mantaining the other branches (el5, el6,
f17, f18) if it's ok for everybody we can review this and at the time of
initial committing to the repositories Ravindra can push a clean spec for
Fedora 19 and I will push the other one in the other branches.

Can I proceed with the formal review once Ravindra applies the aforementioned
patch?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Mx7DMXQYEe&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]