[Bug 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Gustav, I know your project and I'm pleased that you want to package Tupi
for Fedora :)
I'm not a sponsor, but I can help you review your package
Initial Comments:
- Please put the specs in plain text somewhere on their website along with the
resulting SRPM and publish the links here
- Please add in "blocks" field the tag FE-NEEDSPONSOR
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
- If you have no plans to build for EPEL5, please remove
* BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* %defattr(-,root,root)
- I see your package does not generate any shared libraries, therefore should
not use the scriptlet to call ldconfig
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
- You can use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %{buildroot}. Both are acceptable, but
just be consistent.
Example:
Incorrect
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name \*.la | xargs rm -f
Correct:
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
find %{buildroot} -name \*.la | xargs rm -f
Why you marked as a comment this line?
#make %{?_smp_mflags}
Is there any specific reason for not using it?
According to the project page_Tupi 0.2-git01 is the latest revision, please
package this version and naming according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
Regards
--
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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria --- I forgot, please include a %doc section, and include files COPYING, README https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_section https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 Gustav Gonzalez 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
[Bug 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich --- Please post direct links to SRPM and spec file. -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #4 from Gustav Gonzalez --- Hello guys! (Sorry for my delay) I think the SPEC file is ready, but please, help me to ensure that everything is ok. http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi.spec http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Thanks! -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216
--- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich ---
Make the build verbose!
As you are one of the developers, please try to remove the race conditions in
the build system, so multiple workers can be used.
Use name and version macros in Source0.
Every maintained release of Fedora has Qt > 4.7, therefore the version
requirement should be removed.
%{_datadir}/man/man1 must be %{_datadir}/man/man1/*.1* or the likes. Otherwise
you're owning the directory.
Change the permissions of source code files to 644; at least some have
executable permissions. Same for COPYING and README.
The postal address of the FSF is wrong in /usr/share/tupi/data/*/license.html
Run rpmlint on your packages to see some of the things I pointed out.
Locales must be handled like this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
--
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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich --- Tupi doesn't seem to build on PPC: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=774499&name=build.log If you're not interested or able to mend that, you'd do the PPC guys a favour, if you added ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64 -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich --- You need to install a desktop file, since this is a graphical application: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216
--- Comment #8 from Gustav Gonzalez ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Make the build verbose!
I'm doing it now.
> As you are one of the developers, please try to remove the race conditions
> in the build system, so multiple workers can be used.
Done. Now it works!
> Use name and version macros in Source0.
Done.
> Every maintained release of Fedora has Qt > 4.7, therefore the version
> requirement should be removed.
Done.
> %{_datadir}/man/man1 must be %{_datadir}/man/man1/*.1* or the likes.
> Otherwise you're owning the directory.
Done.
> Change the permissions of source code files to 644; at least some have
> executable permissions. Same for COPYING and README.
Done.
> The postal address of the FSF is wrong in /usr/share/tupi/data/*/license.html
Fixed.
> Locales must be handled like this:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
I already read the link, but I would like to see the RPM source of a Qt
application (with .qm files) following this standard.
I was looking for some of them to understand better what changes I have to do
in my source code, but my search was unsuccessful.
Thanks!
--
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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #9 from Gustav Gonzalez --- (In reply to comment #7) > You need to install a desktop file, since this is a graphical application: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files Done. -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #10 from Gustav Gonzalez --- Ok, this is how the thing is going on for now: [xtingray@katana SPECS]$ rpmlint tupi.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [xtingray@katana SRPMS]$ rpmlint tupi-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [xtingray@katana RPMS]$ rpmlint x86_64/tupi-0.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupitwitter.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupianimation.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupigui.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupitimeline.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupicolorpalette.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiscenes.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupihelp.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupifwcore.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupifwgui.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupipen.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiplugincommon.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupimport.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupibase.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupinet.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupistore.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiexport.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupikinas.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupilibrary.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiexposure.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupi.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupipaintarea.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupidebug.so tupi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tupi.bin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 23 warnings. PS: - Why .so files should be part of the devel package? They are not required for development, they are libraries needed by the program. - Should I create a manual page for the tupi.bin file? It seems to be unnecessary. Advises are very welcome. Thanks! :) -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #11 from Volker Fröhlich --- No, I don't consider a manpage necessary for a graphical application. The .so warning is about the libraries being unversioned, much like development symlinks usually are. But those are just your private libs and not development symlinks. Since you don't install them in a place where ldd picks them up, this is fine. Can you upload the newest spec and SRPM? -- 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216
--- Comment #12 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Gustav,
1.- Every time you make a change to the spec should increase the release number
(in the spec) but not in the source tarball
This will leave the changelog and Release tag in this way
Release: 2%{?dist}
%changelog
* Mon Nov 12 2012 Gustav Gonzalez - 0.2-2
- remove the race conditions in the build system
- Use macros in Source0
- Other changes ...
* Fri Oct 26 2012 Gustav Gonzalez - 0.2-1
- Making of RPM
2.- You need BR desktop-file-utils
--
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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #13 from Gustav Gonzalez --- (In reply to comment #11) > Can you upload the newest spec and SRPM? Same location :) http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi.spec http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216
--- Comment #14 from Gustav Gonzalez ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Gustav,
>
> 1.- Every time you make a change to the spec should increase the release
> number (in the spec) but not in the source tarball
>
> This will leave the changelog and Release tag in this way
>
> Release: 2%{?dist}
>
> %changelog
> * Mon Nov 12 2012 Gustav Gonzalez - 0.2-2
> - remove the race conditions in the build system
> - Use macros in Source0
> - Other changes ...
>
> * Fri Oct 26 2012 Gustav Gonzalez - 0.2-1
> - Making of RPM
I promise to start increasing the release number as soon as I understand
the whole packaging process first (I'm pretty close!). Right now, it should
be the 0.2-80, but it wouldn't be fair understanding that I'm just learning :(
> 2.- You need BR desktop-file-utils
I will put it in spec file as soon as I get back to my computer. I'll let you
know when the latest files are ready for revision :)
--
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
