[Bug 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|toolkit written in portable ||C -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-13 06:01:09 EST --- I will review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-13
07:47:08 EST ---
* You can remove libX11-devel from the BuildRequires, since it is already
required by libXext-devel
* The compilation logs are not very verbose. Especially compilation flags
cannot
be checked. Fortunately the Makefile provides a "verbose" variable to view
all
compilation commands. Please enable it:
%build
make %{?_smp_mflags} verbose=1
* The fix on the previous point leads to see that standard Fedora compilation
flags ("%{optflags}") are not used att all. They *must* be called by the
compiler:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Compiler_flags
I suggest you the following fix:
- add the following line in %prep:
%prep
[...]
sed -i "s/CFLAGS := /CFLAGS ?=\nCFLAGS += /" Makerules
It will allow passing custom CFLAGS values. Since it is a small fix, I
thought using sed would be more appropriate than a patch.
- add the following on in %build:
%build
export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
make %{?_smp_mflags} verbose=1
* You have removed the static library libmupdf.a, and it's probably a good
thing
according to the guidelines. Unfortunately there is no corresponding shared
library (.so file), and so your -devel package is completely useless. I
suggest you to report also this issue to upstream.
I attach to this review a patch to build a dynamic version of libmupdf.a
(libmupdf.so), and to link the executables to this one, instead of embedding
the static lib. Anyway it is maybe not usable as is: it is not versionned and
that's a things to be discussed with upstream.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-13 07:48:28 EST --- Created attachment 473308 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=473308 Patch to enable shared lib build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #473308|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-13 09:21:52 EST --- Since your .desktop file has a MimeType entry, you should update the desktop database as described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database It seems that mupdf cannot be launched from the menu: it expects necessarily a PDF path as argument. The .desktop file should not be displayed anyway, even if it is required to allow opening PDFs from the file explorer by a right-click. I suggest you to add the following line: NoDisplay=true to mupdf.desktop file. I've also update the shared library path to include a versionned library (set to mupdf version). Anyway, as said above, it would need upstream validation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #5 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-13 09:23:54 EST --- Created attachment 473330 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=473330 Patch to enable share library build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-13 10:48:23 EST --- - Fixed shared libs - fixed desktop file - fixed CFLAGS - fixed desktop database Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf.spec SRPM URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf-0.7-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-01-13 11:28:26
EST ---
A few comments:
- I think you can safely drop the unnecessary "written in portable C" part of
the summary.
- Mixing %{name} and "mupdf" in %files (and %install) is bad style. Please
stick choose a convention and stick with it.
- There's also no need to use %{__chmod} for chmod, although there is currently
no guideline forbidding it.
- In general, one can override variables such as CFLAGS with e.g.
make verbose=1 CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
However, in this case the Makefile is badly written as includes are made part
of CFLAGS. Thus one would either have to manually append the necessary includes
to the overriding definition, or apply a patch.
Running sed may result in the same thing, but it also can break silently. Using
patches is a lot safer in this respect.
- The -devel package should have
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
instead of the plain
Requires: %{name} = %{version}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID||Ghostscript 691884 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID||Ghostscript 691885 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Bug 669311 depends on bug 668959, which changed state. Bug 668959 Summary: Review Request: jbig2dec - A decoder implementation of the JBIG2 image compression format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668959 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #8 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-13 15:43:57 EST ---
Thank you for comment
- droped
- fixed
- I'm prefer to use %{__command} instead bash command. It's not fobidden by
GuideLnes
- fixed (Patch3), as I see CFLAGS is eq. %{optflags}. Please check it.
- fixed Requires
- created upstream bugs for all patches (please see related bugs)
- fixed so name
Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf.spec
SRPM URL:
http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf-0.7-2.fc14.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-13 15:54:22 EST
---
Is there any particular reason you want to use %{__foo}? The extra typing and
reduced readability is somehow enjoyable?
Honestly, I'm trying to understand this because FPC has talked about
recommending against using pointless macros, and if there's actually a
reasonable argument for them I'd certainly like to hear it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-01-13 16:03:00 EST --- I'm afraid that mupdf-libdir.patch won't fix installation on x86_64. Instead of adding LIBDIR := $(prefix)/lib you need to add LIBDIR ?= $(prefix)/lib -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #11 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-13 16:28:28 EST
---
Peter,
I've checked it:
rpm -ql mupdf | grep libmupdf
/usr/lib64/libmupdf.so.0.7
rpm -ql mupdf-devel | grep libmupdf
/usr/lib64/libmupdf.so
mupdf works perfectly.
So, do I have to replace "LIBDIR := $(prefix)/lib" anyway?
Jason, I read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines (MUST:
Each package must consistently use macros.). After this I've replaced all my
foo to %{__foo}. Is it wrong? I'll fix if It's
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-01-13 17:19:37
EST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Jason, I read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines (MUST:
> Each package must consistently use macros.). After this I've replaced all my
> foo to %{__foo}. Is it wrong? I'll fix if It's
The review guideline refers to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros
The consistency means that you should not mix using %{buildroot} and
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT, or %{optflags} and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, since these mean the same
thing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #13 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-14 01:30:14 EST
---
Jussi,
I have NOT mixed %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, or %{optflags} and
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS in my packages. I'm using macros %{__foo} instead foo according
review guidelines. Please point me reasons to don't use it
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-01-14 03:18:57
EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Jussi,
> I have NOT mixed %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, or %{optflags} and
> $RPM_OPT_FLAGS in my packages.
I know.
(In reply to comment #11)
> Jason, I read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines (MUST:
> Each package must consistently use macros.). After this I've replaced all my
> foo to %{__foo}. Is it wrong? I'll fix if It's
It's not wrong, it's just bad style since it makes spec files a lot harder to
read (Jason put it aptly in comment #9 ).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #15 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-14 05:52:18 EST
---
I haven't any additional reasons to use %{_foo} aginst foo.
There is example in Guidelines with %{__sed} (not sed) using and I prefer to
use it for correct packaging according FPG
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #16 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-14 06:52:05 EST --- Ok. fixed. Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf.spec SRPM URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf-0.7-4.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-14 08:35:36 EST
---
I found a single instance of %{__sed} in the main packaging guidelines, which I
have converted to "sed". If you were referring to something else, please let
me know.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #18 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-01-14 08:51:51 EST --- Ok. I'll use command instead pointless macros. I've replaced the spec file already. Thank you and sorry for confusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
Mohamed El Morabity changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo?(pa...@zhukoff.net
||)
--- Comment #19 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-19
10:41:30 EST ---
Thanks to all contributors who made comments on this review. The RPM looks
quite fine now.
Just a small comment: you should use %{_prefix} instead of /usr explicitely:
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install prefix=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix}
LIBDIR=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}
Anyway the shared library issue is still there, and an upstream approval for
the corresponding patch is necessary; even if the patch does its job, it can
certainly be improved, moreover the choice of the ABI version belongs to the
mupad developers.
The approval of this package will depend on the upstream answer, whatever it
is.
Pavel, I invite you to report it to mupad devs as soon as possible, by
explaining our current policy concerning static libraries.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(pa...@zhukoff.net | |) | --- Comment #20 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-01-19 10:44:46 EST --- Sorry for the NEEDINFO, I've just seen your bug report about the shared libs: http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691887 So let's wait :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID||Ghostscript 691887 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #21 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-02 14:55:57 EST --- upstream bug 691884 - fixed ipstream bug 691887 - shared library patch has been rejected please see http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691887 Do i have close this bug as CANTFIX or UPSTREAM? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX Last Closed||2011-02-02 15:59:50 --- Comment #22 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-02 15:59:50 EST --- Bug closed. Upstream rejects patch for shared libraries without any reasons. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #23 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-02-03 06:12:56 EST --- Do you really want to give up this review? Static libraries are not completely forbidden in Fedora, only discouraged. And I believe that the fact that upstream doesn't want to support shared libraries is a good reason to provide anyway static libs in this package. There was a similar case some months ago: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602279 If you're willing to re-open this review, I suggest you to carefully consider the guidelines relative to static libs: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries mupdf is interesting enough to be distributed through the Fedora repos, in spite of the static lib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CANTFIX | Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #24 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-03 06:59:13 EST --- Mohamed, I am sorry for irascibility Mupdf is good software and I'm using it but I Has been surprised by behaviour of developers. So, Do I rebuild mupdf to use static libraries and build mudpf-static package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #25 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-02-05 08:06:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) > Mohamed, > I am sorry for irascibility No problem, in fact I didn't felt any irascibility here :) > So, Do I rebuild mupdf to use static libraries and build mudpf-static package? Yes. Just keep in mind that since we will only provide a static library, no mupdf-static subpackage is needed; the mupdf-devel package will embed the static library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #26 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-05 16:49:53 EST --- roll back to static http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf.spec http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf-0.7-5.fc14.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2764398 -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #27 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-02-07
04:35:10 EST ---
The devel subpackage needs to provide also mupdf-static, as described in the
guidelines, since it contains only a static library:
%package devel
Summary:Development files for %{name}
Group: Development/Libraries
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
rpmlint detects bad rights on libmupdf.a:
mupdf-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libmupdf.a
You should set its rights to 0644 in %install.
(In reply to comment #19)
> Just a small comment: you should use %{_prefix} instead of /usr explicitely:
> make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install prefix=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix}
> LIBDIR=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}
Don't forget this too ;)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #28 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-07 04:52:15 EST --- Fixed http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf-0.7-6.fc15.src.rpm http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/mupdf/mupdf.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
--- Comment #29 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-02-07
05:45:52 EST ---
At line 90 of your .spec:
%attr(0644,root,root.-) %{_libdir}/libmupdf.a
Using %attr is maybe excessive. Calling « chmod 0644
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libmupdf.a » in %install should be safer and more
simple.
Once this last issue fixed, I will (at last!) approve this package :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #30 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-07 06:04:44 EST --- fixed Use tHe same links. Koji ok. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2766703 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311
Mohamed El Morabity changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #31 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-02-07
10:13:20 EST ---
Here is the review :)
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
->OK, no significant warnings
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
->OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
->OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
->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: 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.
->OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
->OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
->OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
->OK, md5sum = 83adc4d14eb17835df791a9a0d1e8fa9
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
->OK
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.
->N/A
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.
->OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
->N/A
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 %postun.
->N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
->OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
->N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
>OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
->OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
->OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
->OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
->OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
->N/A
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
->OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
->OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
->OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 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: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
->OK
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
->OK
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
->OK
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
->OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
->OK
This package is approved.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #33 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-07 10:18:23 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mupdf Short Description: A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit Owners: landgraf Branches: F-13 F-14 InitialCC: -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #32 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-07 10:17:00 EST --- Thank you for review. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #34 from Bill Nottingham 2011-02-08 15:05:48 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-08 15:42:47 EST --- mupdf-0.7-6.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mupdf-0.7-6.fc14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-08 16:16:14 EST --- mupdf-0.7-7.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mupdf-0.7-7.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed|2011-02-02 15:59:50 |2011-02-08 16:19:32 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System 2011-02-17 20:49:03 EST --- mupdf-0.7-7.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 669311] Review Request: mupdf - A lightweight PDF viewer and toolkit written in portable C
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=669311 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||mupdf-0.7-7.fc13 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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
