Re. subsurface: FTBFS in experimental

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:58:57AM -0700, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:36:45PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:22:18PM +0200, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Le 26/08/2015 13:21, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit :
> > > >>>Well apparently subsurface is now targeted towards Win/Mac[0] (no
> > > >>>binaries for Linux)... so the "experience" for FLOSS users will simply
> > > >>>be that there is no subsurface anymore.
> > > >>No, we have binaries available for Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Mint, and, of
> > > >>course, Debian. And we have a fully automated build script in the works
> > > >>that builds Subsurface on many other distributions that we haven't been
> > > >>able to add to our list. There's an ArchLinux AUR based on that. Etc.
> > > >You are also building the Fedora and OpenSuse packages on the same system while
> > > >if they are both RPM based they do use different macros and have different
> > > >guidelines.
> > > 
> > > Hey, this is not true. Subsurface uses the OBS (Open Build Service) to build packages. OBS runs build jobs inside VMs.
> > > So, Fedora 21 packages are built inside a Fedora 21 VM, Fedora 22 in a Fedora 22 VM, openSUSE 13.2 packages are built in openSUSE 13.2 VM, and so on.
> > > So, this is not the same system, even for the same distro, it is distribution _AND_ release specific.
> > 
> > That doesn't contradict what I am saying: OpenSuse and Fedora have different RPM
> > macros and packaging guidelines but I'm glad to know that OBS builds in the
> > target OS directly.
> > 
> > > >I looked quickly over the spec file and I call already tell that the spec file
> > > >used would not be valid on Fedora, even more fun the source rpm doesn't even
> > > >build on Fedora.
> > > 
> > > What is the problem? You are free to send patches to fix/enhance things.
> > 
> > On F21, for one, missing dependencies.
> 
> I'd love to fix those. Can you point them out to me? When first setting
> things up I did a few test installs in VMs and all seemed to work fine.
> But I never tried to build the source rpms, to be honest.

I'm hoping to spend some time on the subsurface packaging next week which (I
hope) will allow us to figure out all these :)

> So as Guillaume said, independent from everything else we are talking
> about, patches for this would be welcome. Or maybe I should grab your spec
> file from corp and compare... btw, are the builds on corp current with all
> the latest additions? libgit2 0.23, built against libcurl? libgrantlee
> 5.0.0?

No copr is quite out-dated currently, I need to spend some time updating the
spec file (for subsurface should be easy) and making the new packages
(libssrfmarble & all).

Pierre