Bug 1602078

The phrase "free desktop compliant" is meaningless. For the description, I'll suggest: "A WPE backend designed for Linux desktop systems"

(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #1)
> The phrase "free desktop compliant" is meaningless. For the description,
> I'll suggest: "A WPE backend designed for Linux desktop systems"

I have taken your suggestion.

Spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bunnyapocalypse/wpewebkit-rawhide/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00778663-wpebackend-fdo/wpebackend-fdo.spec

Please post an updated SPRM URL as well.

(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #3)
> Please post an updated SPRM URL as well.

Sorry, here it is: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bunnyapocalypse/wpewebkit-rawhide/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00778663-wpebackend-fdo/wpebackend-fdo-0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm

Now that wpebackend has been successfully built, I don't think that there is anything blocking the approval of this package. If you could give it a final lookover Michael, that'd be great.

 - New rule: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784

If a package contains a shared library, which is meant to be linked to by other programs, and which is installed to %{_libdir} directly, those files SHOULD NOT be listed in the %files section of the spec by using a glob in a way that conceals the major soname version (e.g. libfoo.so.*).
Otherwise, when the library bumps its soname as part of an update, this change might remain unnoticed and cause problems like broken dependencies (see the relevant Updates Policy section for further information).


   So instead of:

%{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.*

   you should do:

%{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0
%{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0.*

   in order to avoid unnoticed soname bump.


Package is approved. Please fix the above issue before import.



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
     /wpebackend-fdo/review-wpebackend-fdo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     wpebackend-fdo-devel , wpebackend-fdo-debuginfo , wpebackend-fdo-
     debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: wpebackend-fdo-0.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          wpebackend-fdo-devel-0.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          wpebackend-fdo-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          wpebackend-fdo-debugsource-0.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          wpebackend-fdo-0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm
wpebackend-fdo-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wpebackend-fdo

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)

>    So instead of:
> 
> %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.*
> 
>    you should do:
> 
> %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0
> %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0.*

It seems like these changes have broken my build, as it seems to be not expanding the wildcard? 

Build log: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1571/28821571/build.log

(In reply to Chris King from comment #8)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> 
> >    So instead of:
> > 
> > %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.*
> > 
> >    you should do:
> > 
> > %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0
> > %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0.*
> 
> It seems like these changes have broken my build, as it seems to be not
> expanding the wildcard? 
> 
> Build log:
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1571/28821571/build.log

Nevermind, I had libWPEbackend instead of libWPEBackend, sorry about that

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
>    So instead of:
> 
> %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.*
> 
>    you should do:
> 
> %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0
> %{_libdir}/libWPEBackend-fdo-0.1.so.0.*
> 
>    in order to avoid unnoticed soname bump.

Please fix it for wpebackend as well:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wpebackend/blob/master/f/wpebackend.spec#_44

This is important, since I know there will be at least one soname bump soon.

(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #10)
> Please fix it for wpebackend as well
Done, I have pushed the change to wpebackend and also this package, which has now successfully built.

Could you possibly help me figure out why the minibrowser isn't being built in my packaging of wpewebkit? I have passed the enable minibrowser flag but it still doesn't seem to be building.

Let's discuss MiniBrowser in bug #1601186, since that's not an issue with this package.

This is complete now, right?

(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #13)
> This is complete now, right?

Yes, sorry, I don't know the process for finishing a package request.