Bug 1636668
Summary: | Review Request: wxHexEditor - A graphical Hex Editor | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | John F <johnhford> | ||||||||||||||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||||||||||||||
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||||||||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||||||||||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||||||||||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, pahan, zebob.m | ||||||||||||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||||||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||||||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||||||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||||||||||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||||||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||||||||||
Last Closed: | 2020-09-19 00:45:17 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||||||||||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||||||||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||||||||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||||||||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||||||||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||||||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||||||||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||||||||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 177841, 201449 | ||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
John F
2018-10-06 13:24:48 UTC
Created attachment 1491096 [details]
AArch64 & Armv7hl g++ errors
Created attachment 1491097 [details]
Spec File
Created attachment 1491098 [details]
wxHexEditor-fix-desktop-file.diff
Created attachment 1491099 [details]
wxHexEditor-fix-includes.diff
Created attachment 1491100 [details]
wxHexEditor-install-p.diff
Created attachment 1491103 [details] Spec File v2 I just realised I was testing with Fedora 28's root and not Rawhide. When I tried in Rawhide, I hit this change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires Here's a new copy of the specfile. I submitted a build to Koji here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30075399 Please check this issues Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/FAL.h wxHexEditor- debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexDialogs.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditor.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorApp.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/HexEditorCtrl.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/HexEditorCtrlGui.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/wxHexCtrl/Tag.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/wxHexCtrl/TagDialogGui.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/wxHexCtrl/wxHexCtrl.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorFrame.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorGui.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexPanels.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). none document file? (In reply to Luis Segundo from comment #7) > Please check this issues > > Issues: > ======= > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Those header files aren't actually useful for development and this tool is not really intended to be a usable library as I understand. Since that package isn't something that I actually created myself, my expectation is that the Fedora system knows which header files are useful for creating a valid debugsource package. I couldn't find further information on exactly what should be in the debugsource package, but using an example of Firefox, $ rpm -qlp firefox-debugsource-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | grep "[.]h$" | head /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/aom/AccessibleNode.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/AccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/ApplicationAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/AtkSocketAccessible.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/DOMtoATK.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/DocAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/InterfaceInitFuncs.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/RootAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/nsMai.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/nsMaiHyperlink.h there are 11176 header files in that debugsource file as well as a bunch of cpp files. There's more info here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SubpackageAndSourceDebuginfo > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 On Fedora 29 and Rawhide, that's actually a requirement for a successful build. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot Since it's a no-op on Fedora 28, I suspect that it's not really worthwhile making conditional for Fedora 28. > - [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). That's because I switched to building the RPM using the rawhide mock configuration which generated a file with fc30 in the path and forgot to put a new link to the package. The correct link is http://johnford.org/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc30.src.rpm and I have deleted the fc28.src.rpm file from my server. I have updated the Spec and Srpm which the links point to, and I'll upload a new spec file shortly. > none document file? There aren't really any documentation files as such. The README.md file contains nothing useful, though I did fine a GPL.txt and Change.log file in the repository which I've updated the spec file to include. Created attachment 1493390 [details]
Spec File v3
Your last SPEC file must be an error because it's worse than the previous. Please upload the correct file, it would be better on an external server and not as an attachment please. jhford is not a member of the packager group whereas john64 is, ask infra(not sure if it's them?) to transfer your membership to your new account. %setup -q %patch0 -p1 %patch1 -p1 %patch2 -p1 → Use %autosetup -p1 Give your archive a meaningful name: Source0: https://github.com/EUA/wxHexEditor/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Remove: ExcludeArch: aarch64 ExcludeArch: armv7hl And backport this patch to fix the build: https://github.com/EUA/wxHexEditor/commit/d0fa3ddc3e9dc9b05f90b650991ef134f74eed01 Not needed: \ %{?_smp_mflags} It's already into %make_build Sorry I didn't mean to be rude. The file you last uploaded seems to be an error because it is less detailed than the previous on. See: Name: wxHexEditor Version: 0.24 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: a free hex editor / disk editor for Linux, Windows and MacOSX License: GPLv2.0 URL: https://wxhexeditor.org Source0: https://github.com/EUA/wxHexEditor/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz BuildRequires: wxGTK3-devel Requires: wxGTK3 %description a free hex editor / disk editor for Linux, Windows and MacOSX %prep %setup -q %build make %{?_smp_mflags} %install %make_install %files %doc %changelog It's missing The %files section and the %build seems to be the default stuff, rot like the more specific you uploaded previously. This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience. This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. |