http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3.spec http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3-1.3.2-1.fc14.src.rpm
Some comment for webkitgtk3: 1. It looks like locale files conflict with webkitgtk3. 2. webkitgtk3 uses the same tarball as webkitgtk, I think it can be merged into webkitgtk as subpackages like python/python3 modules. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Subpackages 3. The -doc subpackage seems very tiny and only includes a few files, I think I can be merged into webkitgtk3 and -devel subpackage, it'll more suitable to add LICENSE files to the main package.
s/conflict with webkitgtk3/conflict with webkitgtk
If locale files is used by both webkitgtk and webkitgtk3, I think it's reasonable to split out a -common subpackage to from webkitgtk, then move all docs and locale files to this subpackage.
The translation conflict is just an oversight, the package is intended to be fully parallel installable. Doing it in one spec is just messy, you have to build the same tarball twice with different configurations. I would really prefer to keep things the way they are right now.
(In reply to comment #4) > The translation conflict is just an oversight, the package is intended to be > fully parallel installable. Can those translation files be shared between webkitgtk and webkitgtk3? It seems like the translation files have the same md5sum as webkitgtk Another minor issue should be addressed: According to the latest Licensing Guidelines, -doc subpackage should be merged to mainpackage. See http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138487.html
http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3.spec http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3-1.3.2-2.fc14.src.rpm Here is a revision that fixes the file conflict with webkitgtk and drops the doc subpackage. I don't know if it builds, since koji is down for the weekend, and my system is not up to building webkit locally...
Can I please get this reviewed ? It is now blocking updates of seed, gnome-games, yelp, devhelp, empathy, epiphany, ...
REVIEW: + OK - NA ? ISSUE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License ? License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ md5sum webkit-1.3.2.tar.gz SOURCES/webkit-1.3.2.tar.gz 8736b933d059288cdff9f9be64358954 webkit-1.3.2.tar.gz 8736b933d059288cdff9f9be64358954 SOURCES/webkit-1.3.2.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct + Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. ? Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. + Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. + Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun + .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. + -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ? .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + No rpmlint output. Ignorable warnings - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: ? Should build in mock. ? Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. License would be AML (Apple MIT License) instead of MIT https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License 2. clean section missing, assuming this is for F-13 + ? 3. global preferred to define 4. Would the WebCore/WebKit etc be better off as separate packages? 5. fails to build in mock. Build.log attached 6. rpmlint output: [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec SRPMS/webkitgtk3-1.3.2-2.fc14.src.rpm SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec:106: W: macro-in-comment %patch1 SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec: W: no-%clean-section SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 4) SPECS/webkitgtk3.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.webkitgtk.org/webkit-1.3.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 407: Proxy Authentication Required webkitgtk3.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.webkitgtk.org/ HTTP Error 407: Proxy Authentication Required webkitgtk3.src:106: W: macro-in-comment %patch1 webkitgtk3.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install webkitgtk3.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean webkitgtk3.src: W: no-buildroot-tag webkitgtk3.src: W: no-%clean-section webkitgtk3.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 4) webkitgtk3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.webkitgtk.org/webkit-1.3.2.tar.gz <urlopen error timed out> 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. 7. haven't been able to check for la files yet.
Created attachment 431723 [details] build log for failed build
> Issues: > > 1. License would be AML (Apple MIT License) instead of MIT > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License Where have you seen that license ? I have looked through all the license files and they are all either LGPL or BSD, as the license field states. > 2. clean section missing, assuming this is for F-13 + ? F14+, actually. There is no gtk3 in F13 > 3. global preferred to define I can fix that, certainly. > 4. Would the WebCore/WebKit etc be better off as separate packages? As long as they are shipped in a single tarball, and there is no separate users, I don't see the point. > 5. fails to build in mock. Build.log attached Sorry, my last update wasn't build-tested. I'll correct this in the next iteration.
(In reply to comment #10) > > Issues: > > > > 1. License would be AML (Apple MIT License) instead of MIT > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License > > Where have you seen that license ? > I have looked through all the license files and they are all either LGPL or > BSD, as the license field states. > webkit-1.3.2/WebCore/LICENSE-APPLE webkit-1.3.2/WebKit/LICENSE aren't these AMLs? (I could be wrong)
Next try: http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3.spec http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/webkitgtk3-1.3.3-1.fc14.src.rpm successfully build in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2318967 I have cut out some of the conditional stuff, and switched to %global. The parallel installability has been fixed in the new upstream release, so that patch is gone. I'll double-check those licenses
> webkit-1.3.2/WebCore/LICENSE-APPLE > webkit-1.3.2/WebKit/LICENSE both of these are BSD. Compare https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License
(In reply to comment #13) > > webkit-1.3.2/WebCore/LICENSE-APPLE > > webkit-1.3.2/WebKit/LICENSE > > both of these are BSD. Compare > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License hmm.. the body looks more like the BSD license. The only thing I'm confused about is the Copyright statement right at the start : "Copyright (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Apple Inc. All rights reserved." Doesn't that imply it's an Apple License? The BSD License says : "Copyright 1994-2006 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved." We probably need to get this clarified. The rest looks good. Approved as soon as the License is clarified :)
That license is fine. It is acceptable for the Copyright holder and date to be changed in a license. It is BSD.
XXX APPROVED XXX
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: webkitgtk3 Short Description: GTK+ 3 port of webkit Owners: mclasen Branches:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
build done.