[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1016809 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 [Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Just a few initial comments: ## Remove static libs find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -delete This command deletes libtool archives, not static libs. This does the configure switch "--enable-static=no". BuildRequires: tubo-devel isn't available for Fedora yet and needs to be packaged first. Requires:glib2 >= 2.22.5 Requires:gtk2 >= 2.18.9 Requires:libxml2 >= 2.4.0 Requires:cairo >= 1.8.8 Explicite requirements are not needed in this case. As long as you have the minimum versions in BuildRequires, it cannot happen that the resulting binary package gets lower dependencies. BTW, official Fedora packages don't have an "universal" approach. You don't have to make sure that anyone will be satisfied who fetches this package from anywhere. It is for a certain Fedora release, no more than that. Moreover, you could shrink BuildRequires a bit. An explicite version of gtk is unneeded, because EPEL 6 ships gtk-2.14 which is insufficient. All currently supported Fedora versions have at least gtk-2.24. Gtk2 needs Glib2 anyway, so you can drop it completely. The same is for libxml2 (f18: 2.9.0), file (f18: 5.11) and so on. Keep the legibility of your spec file in mind. Requiring a minimum version doesn't make sense if all current Fedora versions have it anyway and the package can't be built in EPEL. BuildRequires:dbh-devel >= 5.0.6 Well, there's such a package in Fedora, but mostly v1.0.24. Only Rawhide has the required version, so it won't be possible to get it in Fedora <= 21 unless dbh-devel gets backported. This makes all of your minimum version requirements senseless. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1016807 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807 [Bug 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande --- Hi Mario. (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1) > Just a few initial comments: > > ## Remove static libs > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -delete > > This command deletes libtool archives, not static libs. This does the > configure switch "--enable-static=no". Okay. > > BuildRequires: tubo-devel > isn't available for Fedora yet and needs to be packaged first. I'm aware of that. > > Requires: glib2 >= 2.22.5 > Requires: gtk2 >= 2.18.9 > Requires: libxml2 >= 2.4.0 > Requires: cairo >= 1.8.8 > > Explicite requirements are not needed in this case. As long as you have the > minimum versions in BuildRequires, it cannot happen that the resulting > binary package gets lower dependencies. BTW, official Fedora packages don't > have an "universal" approach. You don't have to make sure that anyone will > be satisfied who fetches this package from anywhere. It is for a certain > Fedora release, no more than that. > > Moreover, you could shrink BuildRequires a bit. An explicite version of gtk > is unneeded, because EPEL 6 ships gtk-2.14 which is insufficient. All > currently supported Fedora versions have at least gtk-2.24. Gtk2 needs Glib2 > anyway, so you can drop it completely. The same is for libxml2 (f18: 2.9.0), > file (f18: 5.11) and so on. Keep the legibility of your spec file in mind. > Requiring a minimum version doesn't make sense if all current Fedora > versions have it anyway and the package can't be built in EPEL. > Thank you for this analysis. In fact the list of BuildRequires and Requires packages is an heritage from upstream's spec file but that I have not studied as I should have had to do. > BuildRequires:dbh-devel >= 5.0.6 > Well, there's such a package in Fedora, but mostly v1.0.24. Only Rawhide has > the required version, so it won't be possible to get it in Fedora <= 21 > unless dbh-devel gets backported. This makes all of your minimum version > requirements senseless. I like to bring forward these reviews in advance. :) Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm-5.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann --- Taking this for a full review. Be patient, will need some days. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6118802 $ rpmlint -i -v * librfm.src: I: checking librfm.src: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) librfm.src: W: strange-permission librfm-5.1.3.tar.bz2 0600L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. librfm.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 15) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. librfm.src: W: invalid-url Source1: librfm-COPYING.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. librfm.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/xffm/files/librfm/librfm-5.1.3.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) librfm.armv7hl: I: checking librfm.armv7hl: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) librfm.armv7hl: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/librfm1.so.1.0.0 The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.) librfm.armv7hl: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/librfm1.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.4 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. librfm.armv7hl: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/librodent1.so.1.0.0 The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.) librfm.i686: I: checking librfm.i686: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) librfm.i686: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/librfm1.so.1.0.0 The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.) librfm.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/librfm1.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.0 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. librfm.i686: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/librodent1.so.1.0.0 The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.) librfm.x86_64: I: checking librfm.x86_64: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) librfm.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/librodent1.so.1.0.0 The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.) librfm.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/librfm1.so.1.0.0 The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.) librfm.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librfm1.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and l
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #4) > The mentioned exit() call might be somewhat critical. But it is not up to > you to fix, please ask the upstream developers for a solution. Likewise for > the no-ldconfig-symlink warning. All warnings are under resolution by upstream. I'm waiting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Bug 1018568 depends on bug 1016807, which changed state. Bug 1016807 Summary: Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande --- Hi Mario. The packages should be okay now. This new release requests at least version 5.0.12 of 'tubo'; 'tubo' will be pushed for testing soon but it's already built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=17235 Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm-5.1.5-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build for Rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6180820
$ rpmlint -i -v *
librfm.src: I: checking
librfm.src: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
librfm.src: I: checking-url
http://sourceforge.net/projects/xffm/files/librfm/rpm/librfm5-5.1.5.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
librfm.armv7hl: I: checking
librfm.armv7hl: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
librfm.i686: I: checking
librfm.i686: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
librfm.x86_64: I: checking
librfm.x86_64: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
librfm-debuginfo.armv7hl: I: checking
librfm-debuginfo.armv7hl: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
librfm-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
librfm-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
librfm-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
librfm-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
librfm-devel.armv7hl: I: checking
librfm-devel.armv7hl: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
librfm-devel.armv7hl: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
librfm-devel.i686: I: checking
librfm-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
librfm-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
librfm-devel.x86_64: I: checking
librfm-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://rodent.xffm.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
librfm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
librfm.spec: I: checking-url
http://sourceforge.net/projects/xffm/files/librfm/rpm/librfm5-5.1.5.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
No more than a warning about a -devel package without docs, no problem.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv3+
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
af00e889ac65cf01803c9b0f750d8018926261e01fa3d294867bcb85e70346af
librfm5-5.1.5.tar.bz2
af00e889ac65cf01803c9b0f750d8018926261e01fa3d294867bcb85e70346af
librfm5-5.1.5.tar.bz2.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: librfm Short Description: Rodent file manager primary library functionality Owners: sagitter Branches: f19 f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- Still FTBFS? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10) > Still FTBFS? 'librfm' needs dbh2 (dbh >= 5.0.0) library; it's still not available for F20. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1571 Also a new release of 'librfm' (and Rodent FM) will be released soon; their upgrades are closely related. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt ---
There are packaging issues:
Files %{_libdir}/librfm.so.1* are runtime libs that don't belong into the
-devel package.
> - Added %%post/%%postun for -devel package
Not necessary. ldconfig is a tool affecting runtime. It doesn't touch the *.so
symlinks included in -devel packages.
> Group: Development/Libraries
If you add a Group tag, which is optional nowadays, why isn't that done also
for the base package? It would be "Group: System Environment/Libraries" there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568
--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #12)
> There are packaging issues:
>
> Files %{_libdir}/librfm.so.1* are runtime libs that don't belong into the
> -devel package.
>
> > - Added %%post/%%postun for -devel package
>
> Not necessary. ldconfig is a tool affecting runtime. It doesn't touch the
> *.so symlinks included in -devel packages.
>
> > Group: Development/Libraries
>
> If you add a Group tag, which is optional nowadays, why isn't that done also
> for the base package? It would be "Group: System Environment/Libraries"
> there.
I fix right away.
Thank you Michael.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #14 from Mario Blättermann --- librfm-5.2.9 is available from Rawhide for some weeks, could we close this ticket as CLOSED RAWHIDE now? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-16 08:23:15 --- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #14) > librfm-5.2.9 is available from Rawhide for some weeks, could we close this > ticket as CLOSED RAWHIDE now? Done. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
