[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2014-08-16 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|opensou...@till.name|

Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2014-08-16 17:46:11



--- Comment #8 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com ---
I think this can be closed now. 

cmap is now packaged in five different packages, installed into
/usr/share/cmap.

cmap-japan1-6
cmap-korean1-2
cmap-gb1-5
cmap-cns1-6
cmap-identity0

I'm going to close 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

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2014-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246
Bug 859246 depends on bug 975266, which changed state.

Bug 975266 Summary: Review Request: cmap-japan1-6 - Japanese character mapping 
resources from Adobe's cmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975266

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2014-07-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||lkund...@v3.sk
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-10-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||opensou...@till.name
 Depends On||975266



--- Comment #7 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name ---
Can this review be closed, because of bug 975266
 and others to follow?


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975266
[Bug 975266] Review Request: cmap-japan - Japanese character mapping
resources from Adobe's cmap
-- 
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 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-06-17 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com ---
Well, I've submitted the first cmap package- I have written the other specs but
I figure it makes sense to work through any issues with the first one, fix any
issues, and then submit the others with them all fixed.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975266

I haven't updated the pdfminer spec yet.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ytjpYoKANEa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-05-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
I thought I sent this ages ago, but I saw it still sitting in the browser. 
Sorry for that.

I honestly don't have any idea which way would be best, but I wouldn't object
to a metapackage for this kind of thing even though they are generally frowned
upon.  This just seems to be one of the cases where it makes the most sense. 
Note that I wasn't suggesting they be subpackages, but simply N different
packages (one per independent, separately released and versioned tarball). 
Which does mean a number of reviews, but I'd take care of them for you.

As for documentation, whatever is appropriate makes sense.  Since they would be
independent, you'd need licensing information if it's included anywhere, and I
say that the document indicating current versions of each of the tables within
the tarballs would be appropriate to go in each of the packages, since it
applies separately.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VVpvDFsNKpa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-05-23 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
I am triaging old review tickets.  I can't promise a review if you reply, but
by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones
which aren't stale.

This is another one of those packages which shouldn't have sat around for so
long.  The only real question, I guess, is the issue of versioning, and it's
kind of tricky.  The individual components of the package have their own
versions, but those are grouped into separate tarballs and those tarballs
(which also appear to be versioned) are grouped into this package.

So, the first question would be whether there is any point at all in separately
packaging the tarballs?  Usually we say that you should have one package per
upstream tarball, especially if they are not released all on the same schedule.
 Judging from the list of files on the sourceforge page, that does seem to be
the case, but then I have no idea how useful just one of those files would be
without all of the other stuff in the package.

If the best course of action is to have everything together in one package
(which I'm not really sold on, honestly), then the question arises as to what
version to use.  I think what you've done is fine, though.  You can never
guarantee that the project won't release with an overall version, so you need
to stick to '0' and use the releasse to order/date things. This isn't any kind
of prerelease, so there's no point in using release numbers that all start with
'0'.  So 0-1.DATEsnap is OK.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yecT7431x4a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-05-23 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

--- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com ---
I think it probably could be split into separate packages- I know that
python-pdfminer, the package I was working on that uses cmap, would have
dependencies on only four of the tarballs.

If we do that, would it make sense to have one cmap package that installs all
five cmap-foo packages? (Perhaps have the others be subpackages? I'm not
entirely familiar with what the right way to do something like that would be).

Also, there isn't really any documentation (that I could find) other than the
text and markdown file in the downloads directory, so what sort of
documentation would the subpackages have?

There's also the question of integrating with other packages that bundle cmap,
of course.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7G7RCwkFx8a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-05-20 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||823679

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QSsPgIe0kfa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-01-29 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

--- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com ---
I've removed the redundancies and other inconsistencies. I also changed the
version and release tags to reflect the date I originally checked the package
out; I'm not entirely sure I've done this properly... is it supposed to be:

Version: 0
Release: 1.%{snapshot}%{?dist}

Where %{snapshot} is the snapshot date (and 1 is the release number)?

Anyway, here's the updated spec and RPM:

Spec File: http://venus.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap.spec
Source RPM:
http://venus.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-0-1.20120920snap.fc18.src.rpm

The texlive package seems to use the ac16, etc. subdirectories, so it
probably wouldn't be too drastic a change to pull in this package.

I'll email both the texlive and poppler maintainers about how to integrate this
package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HuuCh8LHtBa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2013-01-22 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this or poppler-data to help.

It could be an idea to talk to the poppler-data maintainers (it's a separate
poppler-data src.rpm) and also figure out whether there are any requirements
related to the names of the directories where the files are stored. For
poppler-data the files are stored in a private path /usr/share/poppler/cMap/.
The paths of this package don't have much in common.

  $ rpmls poppler-data |grep Adobe-CNS1-0
  lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/CMap/Adobe-CNS1-0
  -rw-r--r--  /usr/share/poppler/cMap/Adobe-CNS1/Adobe-CNS1-0

  $ rpmls -p cmap-1.6-0.fc19.noarch.rpm |grep Adobe-CNS1-0
  -rw-r--r--  /usr/share/cmap/ac16/CMap/Adobe-CNS1-0

It's also unlikely that anything knows where to find the files due to those
extra topdir below /usr/share/cmap/, such as ac16. Likely some symlinking
magic will be necessary.

The texlive-adobemapping package (subpackage of texlive) also contains cmap
files.

[...]

The packaging is somewhat strange. If one examines the rpmbuild output:

Executing(%prep): ...
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/misc/tmp/rpm/BUILD
+ cd /home/misc/tmp/rpm/BUILD
+ mkdir -p cmap-1.6
+ cd /home/misc/tmp/rpm/BUILD
+ rm -rf cmap-1.6
+ /usr/bin/mkdir -p cmap-1.6
+ cd cmap-1.6
...
and so on. There are some redundancies. Let's see:

 %prep
 cd %{_builddir}

Not necessary. At the beginning of %prep, you are automatically inside
%_builddir.

 mkdir -p %{name}-%{version}

Not necessary. The following line creates this directory, too:

 %setup -n cmap-1.6 -q -c

-n cmap-1.6 is the default for your package, because -n %{name}-%{version}
is the default.

 %setup -n cmap-1.6 -q -T -D -a 1
 %setup -n cmap-1.6 -q -T -D -a 2
 %setup -n cmap-1.6 -q -T -D -a 3
 %setup -n cmap-1.6 -q -T -D -a 4

There's also an inconsistency in that you mix %{name}-%{version} and the
hardcoded cmap-1.6. It looks a bit like a result of trial-and-error.

The following %prep section could replace all your individual lines:

  %prep
  %setup -q -c -a 1 -a 2 -a 3 -a 4

[...]

 BuildRequires:  tar

Not needed.  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2


 %install
 ...
 cp -r %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/* %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}

At the beginning of %install, you're not just in %_builddir already but in the
directory as specified during %setup. You could reduce the cp line to:

   cp -pr * %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}

Option -p is typically used to preserve timestamps of pre-existing files.


 %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}/

Files below %_docdir are automatically marked as %doc. One could argue whether
to install documentation in a non-versioned /usr/share/cmap directory and not a
versioned dir like thousands of other packages do it. There are packaging
tricks to achieve that even for separate doc %SOURCE files. For example:

  %install
  ...
  rm -rf _tmpdoc ; mkdir _tmpdoc
  install -p -m0644 %SOURCE5 %SOURCE6 _tmpdoc
  ...

  %files
  ...
  %doc _tmpdoc/*


 a better versioning system used? (Snapshot style)?

Certainly sounds like a good idea, IMO. Version: 0 and the download/checkout
date as part of Release.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ojh9lxxtVSa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data

2012-09-20 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246

Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

-- 
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