Bug 2050275
| Summary: | Review Request: opentoonz - 2D animation software | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Diego Herrera <dherrera> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Neal Gompa <ngompa13> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora, ngompa13, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ngompa13:
fedora-review+
|
| 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: | 2022-02-11 18:25:54 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: | |||
|
Description
Diego Herrera
2022-02-03 15:36:48 UTC
> Source0: https://github.com/opentoonz/opentoonz/archive/refs/tags/v1.5.0.tar.gz You can use %{version} as part of the Source URL so you don't have to edit it every time. > BuildRequires: cmake gcc gcc-c++ qt5-qtbase-devel qt5-qtsvg-devel > BuildRequires: qt5-qtscript-devel qt5-qttools-devel qt5-qtmultimedia-devel > BuildRequires: qt5-qtserialport-devel opencv-devel libtiff-devel libpng-devel > ... This is allowed, but personally I'd really encourage you to sort these alphabetically and possibly separate them one-per-line. > %package data > Summary: OpenToonz data files > BuildArch: noarch > ... > %package doc > Summary: OpenToonz doc files Shouldn't the documentation be noarch as well? > cd redhat-linux-build > %make_build Does "%cmake_build" not work properly here? > cd redhat-linux-build > %make_install What about "%cmake_install" here? > desktop-file-install \ > --dir ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications \ > --delete-original \ > ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications/io.github.OpenToonz.desktop If I'm reading this right, this replaces the file with itself. Instead of installing the file over itself, you can just run "desktop-file-validate" on it. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dherrera/opentoonz/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03306584-opentoonz/opentoonz.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dherrera/opentoonz/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03306584-opentoonz/opentoonz-1.5.0-3.fc36.src.rpm Thanks for the review! I applied your suggestions and corrections to the package. Best regards > rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/metainfo
Why are you deleting the metainfo files? Those are used by GNOME Software to show the application in the repository.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > > rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/metainfo > > Why are you deleting the metainfo files? Those are used by GNOME Software to > show the application in the repository. Cool, I didn't know about that, just thought that they were irrelevant artifacts. I just found out that we actually have policies regarding those files [1], so i'll check if the ones provided by upstream apply before adding them again. Thanks for the help! [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dherrera/opentoonz/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/03330383-opentoonz/opentoonz.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dherrera/opentoonz/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/03330383-opentoonz/opentoonz-1.5.0-4.fc36.src.rpm Applied corrections regarding Neal observations. Review notes: * Packaging complies with the guidelines * Package builds and installs * No serious issues from rpmlint * Licensing is correct and license files are correctly installed PACKAGE APPROVED. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opentoonz |