[Bug 871216] Review Request: tupi - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-28 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #27 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
Please! I need some help with this issue...

When I run the rpmlint command for the RPM file, I got many messages like this:

tupi-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/tupi-0.2/src/shell/.moc

But if I add this line to the SPEC file:
find ./ -type d \( -name .obj -o -name .moc \) -print0 | xargs -0 /bin/rm
-rf

The rpmlint command prints 0 errors (which is good), but I got a lot of
messages like this while the rpmbuild command is running:

cpio: tupi-0.2/src/components/animation/.moc/moc_tupanimationarea.cpp: Cannot
stat: No such file or directory

I have been trying to put the find line in several places of the SPECfile
with noluck.

How do I deal with the .moc directoriescreatedby the Qt compilation
process?
Any hint?

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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-28 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #28 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Ignore the rpmlint warning and don't delete the 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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-28 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #29 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org ---
Yes, those files are automatically generated during build. And the fact that
they have hidden names is not an issue, that rpmlint warning is not a real
issue.

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-28 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #30 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
I did undo the changes in the SPEC file and rebuilt the SRPM again:

http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi.spec
http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi-0.2-3.fc17.src.rpm

If there's something missing yet, please, let me know.

Thank you!

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-24 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #26 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
Hi!

These are the latest versions of the SPEC/SRPM files. I hope all the errors
were fixed, but please check the files again and tell me if I forgot to correct
something:

http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi.spec
http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi-0.2-3.fc17.src.rpm

Thank you!

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-18 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #21 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
I noticed the MIME types specified in the desktop file. Those are neither
registered at IANA, nor are they defined. You should define them and then use
the following scriptlet:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-18 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #22 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #20)
 The build still isn't verbose enough. You should see the exact compiler
 command executed.

The configure script has an option --with-debug which prints the whole
information about the compilation process. Should I add it in the configure
line of the spec file?

 The language handling isn't complete. While you're generating a list of
 locale files in the install section, you're not actually using it in the
 files section.

Currently, the software use these files, which are installed by the 
make install command:

./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_cs.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_de.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_da.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_ru.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_es.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_gl.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_pt.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_ca.qm
./share/tupi/data/translations/tupi_it.qm

From the software I load the localization calling using these lines:

 QTranslator *translator = new QTranslator;
 translator-load(kAppProp-shareDir() + data/translations/ + tupi_ +
locale + .qm);
 application.installTranslator(translator);

I still don't get the relationship between this and the spec file. Should I
change my code or what I have to do?

 I'd personally remove the .bin extension from the executable and thus the
 desktop file.

  There's a bash script called tupi, which defines the program variables 
  first and then it calls the tupi.bin binary. How I should deal with this?

 desktop-file-validate tupi.desktop
 tupi.desktop: error: (will be fatal in the future): value tupi.png for key
 Icon in group Desktop Entry is an icon name with an extension, but there
 should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if the
 value is not an absolute path
 tupi.desktop: warning: value
 Application;Graphics;2DGraphics;RasterGraphics; for key Categories in
 group Desktop Entry contains a deprecated value Application

  This error is already fixed.

 Please bump the release number of the spec file on changes and try to write
 a meaningful changelog entry. This makes work easier for reviewers. It wont
 be release 80. The number is only relevant for versions you publish. So
 you'd be at 3 or 4 now.

  Ok. I will extend the changelog entry.

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-18 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #23 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #21)
 I noticed the MIME types specified in the desktop file. Those are neither
 registered at IANA, nor are they defined. You should define them and then
 use the following scriptlet:
 
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo

Quoting from the link:

Use this when a package drops an XML file in %{_datadir}/mime/packages.

%post
/usr/bin/update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime  /dev/null || :

%postun
/usr/bin/update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime  /dev/null || :

Question: Should I install a XML file with the MIME information in the path
%{_datadir}/mime/packages, right? I was looking for an example unsuccessfully,
could you show me the structure of one of those?

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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-18 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #24 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #22)
 (In reply to comment #20)

 I still don't get the relationship between this and the spec file. Should I
 change my code or what I have to do?

Gustav:
No, you do not have to change anything in your code, you just have to install
the language files with:

%files -f %{name}.lang
instead of 

%files 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/find_lang

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-18 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #25 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #23)
 (In reply to comment #21)
 Question: Should I install a XML file with the MIME information in the path
 %{_datadir}/mime/packages, right? I was looking for an example
 unsuccessfully, could you show me the structure of one of those?
 
 Thanks.

You can take a look at this link
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/AddingMIMETutor

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-17 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|rawhide |17

--- Comment #18 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
Hi everyone!

This is the latest version of the files, please, test them and tell me if
there's something to fix: 

http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi.spec
http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm

Thank you guys!

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-17 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #19 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
Report of my tests:

SPECS]$ rpmlint tupi.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

SRPMS]$ rpmlint tupi-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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.

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-17 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #20 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
The build still isn't verbose enough. You should see the exact compiler command
executed.

The language handling isn't complete. While you're generating a list of locale
files in the install section, you're not actually using it in the files
section.

I'd personally remove the .bin extension from the executable and thus the
desktop file.

desktop-file-validate tupi.desktop
tupi.desktop: error: (will be fatal in the future): value tupi.png for key
Icon in group Desktop Entry is an icon name with an extension, but there
should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if the
value is not an absolute path
tupi.desktop: warning: value Application;Graphics;2DGraphics;RasterGraphics;
for key Categories in group Desktop Entry contains a deprecated value
Application

Please bump the release number of the spec file on changes and try to write a
meaningful changelog entry. This makes work easier for reviewers. It wont be
release 80. The number is only relevant for versions you publish. So you'd be
at 3 or 4 now.

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-16 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org
Version|17  |rawhide
 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
Summary|Review Request: Tupi Open   |Review Request: tupi - Tupi
   |2D Magic|Open 2D Magic
  Alias||tupi

--- Comment #15 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org ---
Putting on the KDE reviews tracker as there's no separate one for Qt-only
stuff.

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-16 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #16 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org ---
 ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
rings a big alarm bell for me. How about you fix your code to be
endianness-safe instead?

-- 
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 - Tupi Open 2D Magic

2012-11-16 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216

--- Comment #17 from Gustav Gonzalez xting...@gmail.com ---
Don't worry, this weekend I will focus on the error related to the compilation
for ppc platforms. This fix requires some additional work but I will do it to
remove the ExcludeArch line from the spec file.

When the thing is ready for testing, I'll post a message right here ;)

-- 
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