[Bug 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7384513 (it can take several hours to build) -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- What about those 3rd party resources? Does FESCo approve them? -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Michael Catanzaro changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcatanz...@gnome.org --- Comment #3 from Michael Catanzaro --- FYI this is what openSUSE is doing: webkitgtk (version 2.4.x, WebKit1 compiled against GTK+2, same as us) webkitgtk3 (version 2.4.x, WebKit1 compiled against GTK+3, same as us) webkit2gtk3 (version 2.5/2.6, WebKit2 compiled against GTK+3, your webkitgtk4) I guess for them, the 3 at the end means gtk3. I think your naming might be slightly less bad than theirs, but it's confusing either way. -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember --- Yes, the naming here is not ideal. tpopela discussed different naming options with upstream last week and they advised us to go with webkitgtk4: 11:40 in webkitgtk3, 3 is not for gtk, but the wk binary version 11:40 so I would use webkitgtk4 11:40 don't use webkit2gtk4 for the name of the package 11:41 so we should really go for webkitgtk4 -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #5 from Michael Catanzaro --- OK great, that's Carlos, do what he suggests! -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > What about those 3rd party resources? Thanks for the comment. I guess you wanted me to investigate what's in Source/ThirdParty/ ? It currently has 4 subdirectories. 3 of those, leveldb, gtest, and qunit aren't used in the current build, so I went ahead and dropped those to make reviewing easier. The last one is the ANGLE project which, in my understanding, is not meant to be a separate project and is just copied between chromium and webkit. Don't think it makes sense to split it out to a separate package. * Tue Aug 19 2014 Kalev Lember - 2.5.3-2 - Remove bundled leveldb, gtest, qunit in %%prep (#1131284) Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk4.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk4-2.5.3-2.fc22.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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Michael Catanzaro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mcatanz...@gnome.org Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #7 from Michael Catanzaro --- (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #6) > The last one is the ANGLE project which, in my understanding, is not meant > to be a separate project and is just copied between chromium and webkit. > Don't think it makes sense to split it out to a separate package. It's a distinct upstream project, but it does not make releases and expects to be bundled [1] [2]. It wouldn't make sense as a separate package since every potential user (WebKit 2.4, WebKit 2.5/2.6, Chromium) would need a different version and a different set of patches (Source/ThirdParty/ANGLE/changes.diff). The packaging guidelines are slightly vague here, but my reading is that since ANGLE is not a system library, we don't need to apply for a bundling exception. I'm not sure if that's the intent behind the guideline, though [1] http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/ [2] http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/wiki/ChoosingANGLEBranch -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284
Michael Catanzaro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com
Flags||needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail
||.com)
--- Comment #8 from Michael Catanzaro ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
I think the license field should be:
BSD and BSD with advertising and ISC and LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and MIT and
(MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
The guidelines say that you need to do this, but that does not look fun
or reasonable. Maybe just a comment to say "it's complicated" would be OK?
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
We should probably apply for an exception for ANGLE, but let's not block
on
on that since we've already been bundling it for ages.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
webkitgtk4-devel.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Note: Looks like the timestamps of when the RPM was built. Optional.
We should probably inform upstream about the shared-lib-calls-exit and
unused-direct-shlib-dependency rpmlint warnings.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
Note: Will obsolete libwebkit2gtk3, as mentioned in comment #0.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name},
[Bug 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284
Kalev Lember changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail |
|.com) |
--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember ---
(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #8)
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>
> I think the license field should be:
>
> BSD and BSD with advertising and ISC and LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and MIT and
> (MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)
This is very accurate for the source code, but I don't think we need all that
to describe the license of the resulting _binary_. The license tag in the spec
file is supposed to describe the combined work, the compiled binaries as
shipped in the binary rpm, and this opens up a way to considerably simplify the
license tag.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F
explains how to deal with multiple licensing scenario and how to figure out
what is the "effective" license of the combined work.
I believe we should be able to just state that:
License: LGPLv2
Where did you find BSD with advertising, by the way?
> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
> be documented in the spec.
>
> The guidelines say that you need to do this, but that does not look fun
> or reasonable. Maybe just a comment to say "it's complicated" would be
> OK?
If the combined work is under a single license (LGPLv2), I don't think we need
to do this.
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>
> No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> webkitgtk4-devel.
It seems to be already there for the -devel subpackage, or am I missing
something?
--
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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- Hi Kalev, Provides webkitgtk4: libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0.so.18()(64bit) libwebkit2gtk-4.0.so.37()(64bit) libwebkit2gtkinjectedbundle.so()(64bit) webkitgtk4 webkitgtk4(x86-64) Does libwebkit2gtkinjectedbundle.so need to be provided? -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Michael Catanzaro changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail ||.com) --- Comment #11 from Michael Catanzaro --- (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #9) > I believe we should be able to just state that: > > License: LGPLv2 OK, that's indeed clear from the licensing FAQ. It's less clear from the licensing guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios which is why I got confused. Guess it's better for me to learn this in my first review than later on! > Where did you find BSD with advertising, by the way? I didn't; I got three-clause confused with four-clause. > If the combined work is under a single license (LGPLv2), I don't think we > need to do this. Yup. > It seems to be already there for the -devel subpackage, or am I missing > something? Yes, it's clearly there. I did check the spec to make sure it was missing, but I must have been very blind. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10) > Does libwebkit2gtkinjectedbundle.so need to be provided? Good point. I was not sufficiently familiar with the rules for filtering provides. It does need to be filtered; applications do not link to it directly. So this and ANGLE are the only actual problems. -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #12 from Michael Catanzaro --- (In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #11) > Good point. I was not sufficiently familiar with the rules for filtering > provides. It does need to be filtered; applications do not link to it > directly. So this and ANGLE are the only actual problems. Well, the License field should also be updated to simply LGPLv2. -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(kalevlember@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #13 from Kalev Lember --- * Thu Aug 21 2014 Kalev Lember - 2.5.3-3 - More package review fixes (#1131284) - Correct the license tag to read LGPLv2 - Filter out provides for private libraries Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk4.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk4-2.5.3-3.fc22.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7435643 -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Michael Catanzaro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Michael Catanzaro --- I still recommend applying for a bundling exception, but you and Chris are in a much better position to know if you need one than I am, and like I said earlier I don't want to block on that since this is just a version bump and we already do it. ACCEPT -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #15 from Kalev Lember --- Yep, should probably do that. Thanks for the thorough review, 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Kalev Lember --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: webkitgtk4 Short Description: GTK+ Web content engine library Upstream URL: http://www.webkitgtk.org/ Owners: tpopela kalev Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 --- Comment #17 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 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 1131284] Review Request: webkitgtk4 - GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131284 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||webkitgtk4-2.5.3-3.fc21 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-08-22 09:17:26 --- Comment #18 from Kalev Lember --- Package imported and building; closing the ticket. -- 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
