2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# spec file for package iproute2-doc
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
2017-06-12 22:54:51 +02:00
|
|
|
# Copyright (c) 2017 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany.
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# All modifications and additions to the file contributed by third parties
|
|
|
|
|
# remain the property of their copyright owners, unless otherwise agreed
|
|
|
|
|
# upon. The license for this file, and modifications and additions to the
|
|
|
|
|
# file, is the same license as for the pristine package itself (unless the
|
|
|
|
|
# license for the pristine package is not an Open Source License, in which
|
|
|
|
|
# case the license is the MIT License). An "Open Source License" is a
|
|
|
|
|
# license that conforms to the Open Source Definition (Version 1.9)
|
|
|
|
|
# published by the Open Source Initiative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Please submit bugfixes or comments via http://bugs.opensuse.org/
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name: iproute2-doc
|
2017-07-11 17:39:23 +02:00
|
|
|
Version: 4.12
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
Release: 0
|
2017-07-11 17:39:23 +02:00
|
|
|
%define rversion 4.12.0
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
Summary: Documentation to iproute2
|
|
|
|
|
License: GPL-2.0+
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Documentation/Other
|
|
|
|
|
Url: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/iproute2
|
2014-04-28 17:24:25 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: http://kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/net/iproute2/iproute2-%rversion.tar.xz
|
|
|
|
|
Source2: http://kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/net/iproute2/iproute2-%rversion.tar.sign
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
BuildArch: noarch
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: bison
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: db-devel
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: flex
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: pkgconfig >= 0.21
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: sgmltool
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: texlive
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: texlive-amsfonts
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: texlive-cm-super
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: texlive-dvips
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: texlive-ec
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: texlive-latex
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: tex(english.ldf)
|
2016-04-01 12:50:06 +02:00
|
|
|
BuildRequires: tex(fancyvrb.sty)
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: tex(float.sty)
|
|
|
|
|
BuildRequires: tex(fullpage.sty)
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
%define with_xt 1
|
|
|
|
|
%if 0%{?with_xt}
|
2015-06-29 11:55:40 +02:00
|
|
|
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libmnl)
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xtables) >= 1.4.11
|
|
|
|
|
%endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accepting request 518382 from home:mkubecek:branches:security:netfilter
First of all, I would like to apologize for this submit request, if it was up
to me, I would never send it. I strongly believe it's package maintainer's job
to decide how a package should be organized, what should the specfile look
like, how should patches be named and what format to use etc. That's why
I really dislike the idea of pushing package maintainer to accept someone
else's preferences. I've been forced to submit it but you shouldn't feel
obliged to accept it unless you really like it.
Except for some minor differences, this is a cleanup I did for SLE15 iproute2
package submission. In order to effectively maintain the package throughout
the SLE15 lifetime (planned to be 13+ years), I'm using a git repository to
prepare, handle and track patches and prefer to have them in uniform format
with annotations similar to ones we use in openSUSE/SLE kernel packages. While
this workflow proved beneficial for SLE11 and SLE12 maintenance in last few
years, I don't think it's worth the extra work for Factory package with only
has few patches which are either permanent or only stay there for relatively
short time. Also, with random one-time contributors to Factory package, it
would be even more difficult to keep the package cleaned up.
The problem is that we have so-called "Factory first" policy. In theory, this
should mean no features or bugfixes should be added to SLE packages unless
they are also in the respective Factory package (and preferrably also
upstream) or at least submitted there. This idea sounds reasonable but the
SLE15 review team interprets the policy in rather different way: they want
even the contents Factory and SLE15 packages in OBS to look (almost) the same
and enforce that by declining submissions that differ from Factory in
non-trivial way. For six weeks I tried to appeal to common sense and explain
that those two packages only differ in "metadata coding style" and that if SLE
and openSUSE packages are maintained by different people, there is no need for
one of them to adopt the other's preferences (and that the packages will start
to differ soon anyway).
They were adamant and in the end, they made it absolutely clear that there is
no way the SLE15 submission can be accepted unless I at least submit my
cleanup to Factory devel project. They didn't say it has to be accepted,
though, so here it is but it's completely up to you if you want it or not.
Once again, I'm sorry about dragging you into this, I wanted to avoid it but
I ran out of options.
Summary of the changes:
- patches are regenerated using git
- patches are annotated the way we use in kernel packages (the annotations
make more sense for upstream backports but we currently don't have any in
Factory)
- one patch (iproute2-HZ.diff) is split into two
- Patch* lines are moved out of the rest of tags for easier orientation
- conditionally applied patches are moved to the end of the series
- all patches are applied in both specfiles so that both builds use the same
source tree
OBS-URL: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/518382
OBS-URL: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/security:netfilter/iproute2?expand=0&rev=144
2017-08-23 23:59:19 +02:00
|
|
|
Patch1: adjust-installation-directories-for-openSUSE-SLE.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch2: use-sysconf-_SC_CLK_TCK-if-HZ-undefined.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch3: add-explicit-typecast-to-avoid-gcc-warning.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch4: xfrm-support-displaying-transformations-used-for-Mob.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch5: man-fix-documentation-references-in-manual-pages.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch6: split-link-and-compile-steps-for-binaries.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch7: examples-fix-bashisms-in-example-script.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch101: doc-revert-PDF-creation.patch
|
|
|
|
|
Patch102: Revert-emp-fix-warning-on-deprecated-bison-directive.patch
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
%description
|
|
|
|
|
This package contains the PDF documentation from iproute2,
|
|
|
|
|
as well as examples and other outdated files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%prep
|
2014-04-28 17:24:25 +02:00
|
|
|
%setup -qn iproute2-%rversion
|
2014-12-28 17:51:01 +01:00
|
|
|
%patch1 -p1
|
Accepting request 518382 from home:mkubecek:branches:security:netfilter
First of all, I would like to apologize for this submit request, if it was up
to me, I would never send it. I strongly believe it's package maintainer's job
to decide how a package should be organized, what should the specfile look
like, how should patches be named and what format to use etc. That's why
I really dislike the idea of pushing package maintainer to accept someone
else's preferences. I've been forced to submit it but you shouldn't feel
obliged to accept it unless you really like it.
Except for some minor differences, this is a cleanup I did for SLE15 iproute2
package submission. In order to effectively maintain the package throughout
the SLE15 lifetime (planned to be 13+ years), I'm using a git repository to
prepare, handle and track patches and prefer to have them in uniform format
with annotations similar to ones we use in openSUSE/SLE kernel packages. While
this workflow proved beneficial for SLE11 and SLE12 maintenance in last few
years, I don't think it's worth the extra work for Factory package with only
has few patches which are either permanent or only stay there for relatively
short time. Also, with random one-time contributors to Factory package, it
would be even more difficult to keep the package cleaned up.
The problem is that we have so-called "Factory first" policy. In theory, this
should mean no features or bugfixes should be added to SLE packages unless
they are also in the respective Factory package (and preferrably also
upstream) or at least submitted there. This idea sounds reasonable but the
SLE15 review team interprets the policy in rather different way: they want
even the contents Factory and SLE15 packages in OBS to look (almost) the same
and enforce that by declining submissions that differ from Factory in
non-trivial way. For six weeks I tried to appeal to common sense and explain
that those two packages only differ in "metadata coding style" and that if SLE
and openSUSE packages are maintained by different people, there is no need for
one of them to adopt the other's preferences (and that the packages will start
to differ soon anyway).
They were adamant and in the end, they made it absolutely clear that there is
no way the SLE15 submission can be accepted unless I at least submit my
cleanup to Factory devel project. They didn't say it has to be accepted,
though, so here it is but it's completely up to you if you want it or not.
Once again, I'm sorry about dragging you into this, I wanted to avoid it but
I ran out of options.
Summary of the changes:
- patches are regenerated using git
- patches are annotated the way we use in kernel packages (the annotations
make more sense for upstream backports but we currently don't have any in
Factory)
- one patch (iproute2-HZ.diff) is split into two
- Patch* lines are moved out of the rest of tags for easier orientation
- conditionally applied patches are moved to the end of the series
- all patches are applied in both specfiles so that both builds use the same
source tree
OBS-URL: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/518382
OBS-URL: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/security:netfilter/iproute2?expand=0&rev=144
2017-08-23 23:59:19 +02:00
|
|
|
%patch2 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%patch3 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%patch4 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%patch5 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%patch6 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%patch7 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%if 0%{?sles_version} == 11 || (0%{?suse_version} && 0%{?suse_version} <= 1220)
|
|
|
|
|
%patch101 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%endif
|
|
|
|
|
%if 0%{?sles_version} == 11
|
|
|
|
|
%patch102 -p1
|
|
|
|
|
%endif
|
|
|
|
|
find . -name *.orig -delete
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%build
|
|
|
|
|
# build with -fPIC. For details see
|
|
|
|
|
# https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=388021
|
|
|
|
|
xt_libdir="$(pkg-config xtables --variable=xtlibdir)";
|
|
|
|
|
xt_cflags="$(pkg-config xtables --cflags)";
|
|
|
|
|
make %{?_smp_mflags} LIBDIR="%_libdir" CCOPTS="-D_GNU_SOURCE %optflags -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-error -fPIC -DXT_LIB_DIR=\\\"$xt_libdir\\\" $xt_cflags"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cd doc
|
|
|
|
|
make pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%install
|
2015-07-15 16:41:53 +02:00
|
|
|
make install DESTDIR="%buildroot" LIBDIR="%_libdir" \
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
MODDESTDIR="$b/%_libdir/tc" DOCDIR="%_docdir/iproute2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-07-15 16:41:53 +02:00
|
|
|
mkdir -p "%buildroot/%_docdir/iproute2";
|
|
|
|
|
cp -an ip/{ifcfg,routef,routel} doc/*.pdf "%buildroot/%_docdir/iproute2/"
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2015-07-15 16:41:53 +02:00
|
|
|
t="$$"
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir "$t"
|
|
|
|
|
mv "%buildroot/%_docdir" "$t/"
|
|
|
|
|
rm -rf "%buildroot"/*
|
|
|
|
|
mkdir -p "%buildroot/%_docdir"
|
|
|
|
|
mv "$t/packages"/* "%buildroot/%_docdir"
|
|
|
|
|
rm -rf "$t"
|
2014-04-28 17:07:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%files
|
|
|
|
|
%defattr(-,root,root)
|
|
|
|
|
%_docdir/iproute2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%changelog
|