[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 --- Comment #12 from Andy Mender --- Yup, indeed it does! I always assumed that the slash is needed as I had major problems with the various %dir, etc. directory entries in the %files section. Good to know, thanks! -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 --- Comment #11 from Jerry James --- Trailing slashes on directory names are optional. Here is the list of files in the package built for koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=22926268 You can see that it includes /usr/share/fcitx5. I like the trailing slashes because they make it clear that the name indicates a directory, but rpm doesn't care if the trailing slash is there or not. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846
--- Comment #10 from Andy Mender ---
I just realized that the fcitx5-data subpackage doesn't properly own it's data
dir, because the trailing slash is missing:
%{_datadir}/%{name}
It should be:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
Apologies for not noticing this earlier. Could you fix it inside the Pagure
repo?
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-22 07:46:14 --- Comment #9 from Qiyu Yan --- Built in rawhide -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Bug 1868846 depends on bug 1868845, which changed state. Bug 1868845 Summary: Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fcitx5 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||loganje...@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to Qiyu Yan from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #4)
> > - Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fcitx5-libs
> > # not a big issue, but adding this will prevent accidental installs of
> > fcitx5-libs alone.
> Reasonable, fixed
Now the main package has:
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
and the libs subpackage has:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
which means that installing either package gives you both. In that case, what
is the point in even having a libs subpackage? It looks to me as though the
second of the two Requires (the one just added to the libs subpackage) is
wrong. Not having it means that other programs can link to the library and not
drag in the binaries in the main package. I think you should remove that
Requires again.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender --- All clear, package approved! -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846
--- Comment #5 from Qiyu Yan ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #4)
> Overall looks great!
>
> Two items remaining:
> - Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fcitx5-libs
> # not a big issue, but adding this will prevent accidental installs of
> fcitx5-libs alone.
Reasonable, fixed
> - fcitx5.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
> /etc/X11/xinit/xinput.d/fcitx5.conf # if I understand correctly, as it
> stands now fcitx5 updates can accidentally override the fcitx5.conf config.
> We probably don't want that.
I am not sure if it is good to let users to change the xinputrc script, but
giving
users more powers are always good, fixed
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612145-fcitx5/fcitx5.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612145-fcitx5/fcitx5-0-0.2.git87fb655.fc34.src.rpm Description: Fcitx 5 is a generic input method framework released under LGPL-2.1+. Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846
--- Comment #4 from Andy Mender ---
Overall looks great!
Two items remaining:
- Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fcitx5-libs
# not a big issue, but adding this will prevent accidental installs
of fcitx5-libs alone.
- fcitx5.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/X11/xinit/xinput.d/fcitx5.conf # if I understand correctly, as it stands
now fcitx5 updates can accidentally override the fcitx5.conf config. We
probably don't want that.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 --- Comment #3 from Qiyu Yan --- Updated all fcitx5-*.spec, and about the version in changelog, it seems that rpm macros have been updated again (they removed the snapshot date tag), But in my case, I will make the version 0-0.N accurate, so, I think it will be safe to ignore the rpmlint warning about versioning. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612142-fcitx5/fcitx5.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612142-fcitx5/fcitx5-0-0.2.git87fb655.fc34.src.rpm Description: Fcitx 5 is a generic input method framework released under LGPL-2.1+. Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846
--- Comment #2 from Qiyu Yan ---
> Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically?
> Also, can you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" format
> for the -devel packages?
Fixed, and I am planning to fix same problem for other fcitx5* packages, may
need some time.
>
> > %check
> > %ctest
>
> I see 2 failing tests when building the package locally:
> 34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580770 emoji.cpp:182] Trying to load emoji for en
> from /usr/share/unicode/cldr/common/annotations/en.xml: 2152 entry(s) loaded.
> 34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580788 addonmanager.cpp:271] Unloading addon emoji
> 31/36 Test #34: testemoji Passed0.02 sec
> 32/36 Test #33: testisocodes . Passed0.04 sec
> 2:
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped)
> "$@"
> 2:
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process
> 33/36 Test #2: testdbus .***Failed0.09 sec
> F2020-08-15 17:53:56.549280 testdbus.cpp:94] slot failed
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped)
> "$@"
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process
>
> Do the tests work for you? I had to disable the tests to run fedora-review.
It works, both in copr or local machine
e.g. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yanqiyu/fcitx5/build/1612145/
>
> > %files -f %{name}.lang
> > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt
> > %doc README.md
> > %{_bindir}/*
>
> I think here you can list the binaries, since there aren't so many of them:
> %{_bindir}/fcitx5
> %{_bindir}/fcitx5-configtool
> %{_bindir}/fcitx5-remote
Using
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/%{name}-configtool
%{_bindir}/%{name}-remote
>
> > %files devel
> > %{_includedir}/*
> > %{_libdir}/cmake/*
> > %{_libdir}/*.so
> > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
>
> Here I would be more specific like so:
> %{_includedir}/Fcitx5/
> %{_libdir}/cmake/Fcitx5* # quite a lot of CMake dirs
> %{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so
> %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/Fcitx5*.pc
Done
>
> It's not mandatory, but it gives you tighter control over what goes into the
> package and avoids picking up unintended files :)
>
> > %files libs
> > %{_libdir}/%{name}
> > %{_libdir}/*.so.*
>
> Same here:
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/ # that way your package owns the entire dir
> %{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so.*
>
> You can be even more specific with the SO files to pick up soname bumps, but
> again that's not mandatory.
Done.
>
> The full review matrix below. I marked some items as "fail", because I think
> they might need to be discussed:
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> Review: It might be because I had to build the packages on my F32 system
> manually,
> but please have a look at the errors at the end of the review.
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
> file-validate if there is such a file.
> Review: Desktop files should be installed using one of the above commands
Fixed
>
>
> = MUST items =
>
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
> attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
> Review: Present in fcitx5-libs. Is it possible to version them?
They are meant to be loaded internally, so I tried to exclude them from being
included into Provides
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> Review: fcitx5-libs can theoretically be installed alone.
> Can you add a license file to it as well?
Fixed
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners:
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
>
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607752-fcitx5/fcitx5.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607752-fcitx5/fcitx5-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc33.src.rpm Description: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> BuildRequires: cairo-devel, enchant-devel, iso-codes-devel
> BuildRequires: mesa-libGL-devel, libxkbcommon-x11-devel
> BuildRequires: pango-devel, systemd-devel, systemd-rpm-macros
> BuildRequires: wayland-devel, wayland-protocols-devel, libxcb-devel
> BuildRequires: xcb-util-wm-devel, xcb-imdkit-devel, xcb-util-wm-devel
> BuildRequires: libxkbfile-devel, fmt-devel, gdk-pixbuf2-devel
> BuildRequires: cldr-emoji-annotation-devel, libuuid-devel
> BuildRequires: expat-devel, json-c-devel, xkeyboard-config-devel
> BuildRequires: xcb-util-keysyms-devel
Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically? Also,
can you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" format for the
-devel packages?
> %check
> %ctest
I see 2 failing tests when building the package locally:
34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580770 emoji.cpp:182] Trying to load emoji for en from
/usr/share/unicode/cldr/common/annotations/en.xml: 2152 entry(s) loaded.
34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580788 addonmanager.cpp:271] Unloading addon emoji
31/36 Test #34: testemoji Passed0.02 sec
32/36 Test #33: testisocodes . Passed0.04 sec
2:
/home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh:
line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped) "$@"
2:
/home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh:
line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process
33/36 Test #2: testdbus .***Failed0.09 sec
F2020-08-15 17:53:56.549280 testdbus.cpp:94] slot failed
/home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh:
line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped) "$@"
/home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh:
line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process
Do the tests work for you? I had to disable the tests to run fedora-review.
> %files -f %{name}.lang
> %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt
> %doc README.md
> %{_bindir}/*
I think here you can list the binaries, since there aren't so many of them:
%{_bindir}/fcitx5
%{_bindir}/fcitx5-configtool
%{_bindir}/fcitx5-remote
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/*
> %{_libdir}/cmake/*
> %{_libdir}/*.so
> %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
Here I would be more specific like so:
%{_includedir}/Fcitx5/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Fcitx5* # quite a lot of CMake dirs
%{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/Fcitx5*.pc
It's not mandatory, but it gives you tighter control over what goes into the
package and avoids picking up unintended files :)
> %files libs
> %{_libdir}/%{name}
> %{_libdir}/*.so.*
Same here:
%{_libdir}/%{name}/ # that way your package owns the entire dir
%{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so.*
You can be even more specific with the SO files to pick up soname bumps, but
again that's not mandatory.
The full review matrix below. I marked some items as "fail", because I think
they might need to be discussed:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
Review: It might be because I had to build the packages on my F32 system
manually,
but please have a look at the errors at the end of the review.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
Review: Desktop files should be installed using one of the above commands.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Review: Present in fcitx5-libs. Is it possible to version them?
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
Review: It does, but tests had to be disabled. See earlier comments.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1868861, 1868850, 1868853, ||1868847, 1868854, 1868848, ||1868851, 1868857, 1868849 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868847 [Bug 1868847] Review Request: fcitx5-gtk - Gtk im module and glib based dbus client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868848 [Bug 1868848] Review Request: fcitx5-qt - Qt library and IM module for fcitx5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868849 [Bug 1868849] Review Request: libime - This is a library to support generic input method implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868850 [Bug 1868850] Review Request: fcitx5-chinese-addons - Chinese related addon for fcitx5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868851 [Bug 1868851] Review Request: fcitx5-rime - RIME support for Fcitx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868853 [Bug 1868853] Review Request: fcitx5-configtool - Configuration tools used by fcitx5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868854 [Bug 1868854] Review Request: fcitx5-lua - Lua support for fcitx. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868857 [Bug 1868857] Review Request: fcitx5-skk - Japanese SKK (Simple Kana Kanji) Engine for Fcitx5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868861 [Bug 1868861] Review Request: fcitx5-chewing - Chewing Wrapper for Fcitx -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
