[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #24 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-09-25 07:22:41 EDT --- I'm sure this ticket may be closed now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-16 05:26:43 EDT --- Well, I guess this package is fine now. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #22 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-05 08:58:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > As I read the guideline I'm already compliant, because the one and the other > mean exactly the same thing. There is no tangible benefit from substituting > the > short-hand version with the long-hand one other than the latter matches > verbatim what's written in the guideline. Yeah, I discovered this only a while ago. No problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Nils Philippsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #21 from Nils Philippsen 2009-08-05 08:47:24 EDT --- Sorry for the late response. The xsane-0.997-3.fc12 package is building right now with the changes below. (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Thanks for your effort, but I'll not use your patch because it's not very > > readable (better use unified diffs: diff -u) and I want to discuss some > > things: > > Right. You could have generated an unified diff by patching a local copy of > the > spec file, though :) Yuck ;-). > > (In reply to comment #11) > > > - Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions, > > > I'd > > > suggest using off-root builds. > > > > Later you said you had problems with that, what were these? > > The automake stuff isn't configured properly. First of all, configure reads > some xsane. files (at least xsane.NEWS), so one needs to copy them to the > build > dir. After that things got even messier since it seemed that there were > problems with header files etc as well. > > This could of course be overcome rather simply: do a manual setup of the build > tree by extracting the tarball twice into separate subdirs (gimp and nogimp) > where the builds can be made separately. > > This of course doubles the size of the -debuginfo package (although I'm not > sure if debugging xsane-gimp is even possible now!). Oh, I'd rather not have that ;-). It seems we need to fix the autofoo stuff in the package to use off-root builds, but I guess this is "out of scope" for this review anyway. > > > - No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and > > > is not > > > even supposed to be changed. > > > > "Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the > > life of > > the package." As this is a merge review, i.e. the package isn't new, I'll > > leave > > it as it is. > > Yes, that's exactly my point. As there are only two instances where the macro > is used, I'd replace them both with "fedora". Now I understand you ;-). Fixed. > > > MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the > > > package > > > that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK > > > - Package must not own > > > %dir %{_datadir}/applications > > > which is a standard system directory. > > > - gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own > > > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp > > > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d > > > > fixed (-gimp subpackage already requires gimp) > > Only in %post and %postun phases. Fixed. > > > MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK > > > - %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and > > > %{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and > > > xsane-gimp. > > > Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be > > > wiser > > > to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > > to > > > xsane-gimp. > > > > xsane and xsane-gimp can be installed independently, they both need the same > > xsane-eula.txt file. I believe the rule you're hinting on means files listed > > twice for the same package (e.g. twice in "%files gimp") > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles > > "A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files > listings. If you think your package is a valid exception to this, please bring > it to the attention of the Packaging Committee so they can improve on this > Guideline." > > Now you have xsane-eula.txt and the directories listed twice. Of course, you > can get around this by putting xsane-eula.txt in %doc of the xsane-gimp > package. No, I can't as xsane-gimp won't work properly without it in that exact location ;-). Anyway, I've moved the eula and documentation to a -common subpackage which gets pulled in by both xsane and xsane-gimp. > > > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK > > > - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root). > > > > The latter (which I use) is functionally equivalent to the former (which > > isn't > > mandatory either). > > Hmm, the guideline at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > states: > "Unless you have a very good reason to deviate from that, you should use > %defattr(-,root,root,-) for all %files sections in your package." > Please, just use the version of the guideline. As I read the guideline I'm already compliant, because the one and the other mean exactly the same thing. There is no tangible benefit from substituting the short-hand version with the lo
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #20 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-08-05 07:21:13 EDT --- ping again? Nils? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #19 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-07-10 08:57:48 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #17 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-29 09:00:52 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=345904) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345904) Patch in unified mode -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #18 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-29 09:02:37 EDT --- The defattr line of the gimp package should be changed too in the above patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #16 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-29 08:59:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > Thanks for your effort, but I'll not use your patch because it's not very > readable (better use unified diffs: diff -u) and I want to discuss some > things: Right. You could have generated an unified diff by patching a local copy of the spec file, though :) > (In reply to comment #11) > > - Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions, I'd > > suggest using off-root builds. > > Later you said you had problems with that, what were these? The automake stuff isn't configured properly. First of all, configure reads some xsane. files (at least xsane.NEWS), so one needs to copy them to the build dir. After that things got even messier since it seemed that there were problems with header files etc as well. This could of course be overcome rather simply: do a manual setup of the build tree by extracting the tarball twice into separate subdirs (gimp and nogimp) where the builds can be made separately. This of course doubles the size of the -debuginfo package (although I'm not sure if debugging xsane-gimp is even possible now!). > > - No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and is > > not > > even supposed to be changed. > > "Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the life > of > the package." As this is a merge review, i.e. the package isn't new, I'll > leave > it as it is. Yes, that's exactly my point. As there are only two instances where the macro is used, I'd replace them both with "fedora". > > MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the > > package > > that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK > > - Package must not own > > %dir %{_datadir}/applications > > which is a standard system directory. > > - gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own > > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp > > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d > > fixed (-gimp subpackage already requires gimp) Only in %post and %postun phases. > > MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK > > - %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and > > %{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and > > xsane-gimp. > > Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be > > wiser > > to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to > > xsane-gimp. > > xsane and xsane-gimp can be installed independently, they both need the same > xsane-eula.txt file. I believe the rule you're hinting on means files listed > twice for the same package (e.g. twice in "%files gimp") http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles "A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. If you think your package is a valid exception to this, please bring it to the attention of the Packaging Committee so they can improve on this Guideline." Now you have xsane-eula.txt and the directories listed twice. Of course, you can get around this by putting xsane-eula.txt in %doc of the xsane-gimp package. > > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK > > - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root). > > The latter (which I use) is functionally equivalent to the former (which isn't > mandatory either). Hmm, the guideline at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions states: "Unless you have a very good reason to deviate from that, you should use %defattr(-,root,root,-) for all %files sections in your package." Please, just use the version of the guideline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #15 from Nils Philippsen 2009-05-29 08:41:24 EDT --- Thanks for your effort, but I'll not use your patch because it's not very readable (better use unified diffs: diff -u) and I want to discuss some things: (In reply to comment #11) > - Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions, I'd > suggest using off-root builds. Later you said you had problems with that, what were these? > ** > > rpmlint output: > xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.CHANGES > xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.PROBLEMS > xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.INSTALL > xsane-gimp.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > - You need to convert these to UTF-8 in the setup phase: > > for doc in xsane.{CHANGES,PROBLEMS,INSTALL}; do > iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t utf8 $doc -o $doc.new && \ > touch -r $doc $doc.new && \ > mv $doc.new $doc > done applied > - You don't need BR: sed, it is in the standard buildroot. removed > - No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and is not > even supposed to be changed. "Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the life of the package." As this is a merge review, i.e. the package isn't new, I'll leave it as it is. > MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the > package > that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK > - Package must not own > %dir %{_datadir}/applications > which is a standard system directory. > - gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d fixed (-gimp subpackage already requires gimp) > MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK > - %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and > %{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and xsane-gimp. > Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be > wiser > to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to > xsane-gimp. xsane and xsane-gimp can be installed independently, they both need the same xsane-eula.txt file. I believe the rule you're hinting on means files listed twice for the same package (e.g. twice in "%files gimp") > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK > - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root). The latter (which I use) is functionally equivalent to the former (which isn't mandatory either). > MUST: Clean section exists. OK > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A > > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. NEEDSWORK > - Remove unneeded files from doc (rm in setup or install phase): xsane.RPM, > xsane.conf, xsane.spec*, xsane.INSTALL, xsane.REMOVE I've changed the file list to only include the other documentation files. I've commited my changes to Rawhide CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-28 09:59:51 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=345764) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345764) Patch against spec file in CVS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-28 10:01:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Created an attachment (id=345764) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345764) [details] > Patch against spec file in CVS This should fix every issue in the review. I tried the off-root build, however it didn't work as nicely as it should. Maybe it's easier and nicer to keep the build the way it is now. I did add the SMP flags to the build, though. Once you have committed the patch to CVS and built it in rawhide, I can check that everything is OK and approve the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-28 09:34:10 EDT --- - Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions, I'd suggest using off-root builds. ** rpmlint output: xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.CHANGES xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.PROBLEMS xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.INSTALL xsane-gimp.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. - You need to convert these to UTF-8 in the setup phase: for doc in xsane.{CHANGES,PROBLEMS,INSTALL}; do iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t utf8 $doc -o $doc.new && \ touch -r $doc $doc.new && \ mv $doc.new $doc done MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. ~OK - You don't need BR: sed, it is in the standard buildroot. - No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and is not even supposed to be changed. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK - Package must not own %dir %{_datadir}/applications which is a standard system directory. - gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK - %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and %{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and xsane-gimp. Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be wiser to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to xsane-gimp. MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root). MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Remove unneeded files from doc (rm in setup or install phase): xsane.RPM, xsane.conf, xsane.spec*, xsane.INSTALL, xsane.REMOVE MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-28 09:34:41 EDT --- I'll make a patch for these issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #10 from Bernie Innocenti 2009-05-28 09:29:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Is this review stuck? I'm going to approve it in one week if nobody takes > > over. > > No, it is not stuck, since no-one has even done the review yet! Well, Nils Philippsen did an initial review and the packager responded to it. > Taking over. Sure, go on. This review has been stuck for way too long. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-28 04:20:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Is this review stuck? I'm going to approve it in one week if nobody takes > over. No, it is not stuck, since no-one has even done the review yet! Taking over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Bernie Innocenti changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ber...@codewiz.org --- Comment #8 from Bernie Innocenti 2009-03-18 06:28:40 EDT --- Is this review stuck? I'm going to approve it in one week if nobody takes over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant 2009-01-10 17:01:44 EDT --- Parag, is there any reason left to not approve this package and get it off the list of merge reviews ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 07:53 EST --- Sorry, I was a bit under water... I'm building xsane-0.994-3.fc7 right now which doesn't list the Application category for the desktop file anymore, please check. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:22 EST --- No response from maintainer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-30 12:37 EST --- >> Also you may need to add following line to SPEC for desktop-file-install >> --remove-category Application \ >> Neccesary for warning coming in build.log >Please explain. When you got your package built. Kindly check build.log. There you will see now Application word is no longer needed in .desktop files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-30 11:32 EST --- xsane-0.993-2 even ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-30 11:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Just checked this package in Mock build environment and created patch to SPEC > -Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface. > +Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface "X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface" > -Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-buildroot > +Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK > %package gimp > -Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface. > +Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface "GIMP plug-in providing the SANE scanner interface" > %prep > -rm -rf %{buildroot} OK > -%{_sysconfdir}/gimp > -%{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d > -%config %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf > +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp > +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d > +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf OK > * Mon Jul 26 1999 Tim Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > - update to 0.30 > -- added %defattr > +- added %%defattr OK > Also you may need to add following line to SPEC for desktop-file-install > --remove-category Application \ > Neccesary for warning coming in build.log Please explain. > Then i even saw rpmlint output is not silent on RPM. It gave me > I: xsane checking > W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure > --with-install-root=%{buildroot} > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it > will break short circuiting. > > W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure > --with-install-root=%{buildroot} > --disable-gimp > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it > will break short circuiting. I've removed --with-install-root=... from the configure calls (let's hope it doesn't break anything). > Also Mock build.log is gave me following messages > acinclude.m4:8: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_GTK2 > acinclude.m4:8: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' > acinclude.m4:8: or see > http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending-aclocal > m4/gettext.m4:60: the serial number must appear before any macro definition > m4/gettext.m4:83: the serial number must appear before any macro definition AFAIK that's from other pkgs' files in /usr/share/aclocal. > > AND > sed: can't read ./intl/po2tbl.sed.in: No such file or directory I don't know about this one and why it happens. > Can you please look at these things? hwbrowser-0.993-2 is building with the changes above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-26 06:13 EST --- Just checked this package in Mock build environment and created patch to SPEC --- xsane.spec 2007-02-26 16:14:55.0 +0530 +++ xsane-modified.spec 2007-02-26 16:15:20.0 +0530 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ %define desktop_vendor fedora Name: xsane -Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface. +Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface Version: 0.991 Release: 4%{?dist} Source0: http://www.xsane.org/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ License: GPL URL: http://www.xsane.org/ Group: Applications/Multimedia -Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-buildroot +Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRequires: sane-backends-devel gimp-devel libpng-devel libjpeg-devel BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils >= 0.2.92 BuildRequires: libtiff-devel @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ performing the scan and then manipulating the captured image. %package gimp -Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface. +Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface Group: Applications/Multimedia Requires(post): gimp >= 2:2.2.12-4 Requires(preun): gimp >= 2:2.2.12-4 @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ installed to use this package. %prep -rm -rf %{buildroot} %setup -q %patch0 -p1 -b .htmlview %patch1 -p1 -b .medium-definitions @@ -100,9 +99,9 @@ %dir %{_datadir}/sane %dir %{_datadir}/sane/xsane %{_datadir}/sane/xsane/*eula* -%{_sysconfdir}/gimp -%{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d -%config %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf %post gimp if [ -x "%{_sbindir}/gimp-plugin-mgr" ]; then @@ -372,7 +371,7 @@ * Mon Jul 26 1999 Tim Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - update to 0.30 -- added %defattr +- added %%defattr - built for 6.1 * Thu Apr 22 1999 Preston Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> === Also you may need to add following line to SPEC for desktop-file-install --remove-category Application \ Neccesary for warning coming in build.log Then i even saw rpmlint output is not silent on RPM. It gave me I: xsane checking W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --with-install-root=%{buildroot} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --with-install-root=%{buildroot} --disable-gimp $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. Also Mock build.log is gave me following messages acinclude.m4:8: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_GTK2 acinclude.m4:8: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' acinclude.m4:8: or see http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending-aclocal m4/gettext.m4:60: the serial number must appear before any macro definition m4/gettext.m4:83: the serial number must appear before any macro definition AND sed: can't read ./intl/po2tbl.sed.in: No such file or directory Can you please look at these things? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review