Bug 453772

Summary and Description should come from the package you're submitting:

Description:
Perl bindings to the GtkImageView image viewer widget.
Find out more about GtkImageView at http://trac.bjourne.webfactional.com/.

The Perl bindings follow the C API very closely, and the C reference
should be considered the canonical documentation.

I also note that you are not an existing packager, so you will need a sponsor. 
I suggest reading through http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join.

Is there a reason you don't just link to the usual CPAN page for this module and
use the usual download locations:

URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Gtk2-ImageView/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RA/RATCLIFFE/Gtk2-ImageView-0.04.tar.gz

There are several structural comments from the specfile template you used, which
you should probably remove.

This fails to build for me in rawhide:

+ /usr/bin/perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor 'OPTIMIZE=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-m64 -mtune=generic'
Requested 'gtkimageview >= 1.6.0' but version of gtkimageview is 1.5.0
*** can not find package gtkimageview >= 1.6.0
*** check that it is properly installed and available in PKG_CONFIG_PATH
 at Makefile.PL line 46
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.92620 (%build)

Is someone going to upgrade gtkimageview in rawhide so that this package will
build?  It doesn't suffice to just supply the prerequisites in the review
ticket; they actually have to make it into the distribution.

Of course it failed to build for you; I said right above, "I had to update
gtkimageview to 1.6.1 (currently at 1.5.0; the Gtk2::ImageView docs say 1.6.0 is
minimum) to build the perl package."  That's why I provided those extra links;
you have to build gtkimage-1.6.1, make it available to your build system, then
build perl-Gtk2-ImageView, make it available, then build gscan2pdf (the point of
the whole exercise).

Yes, I was in the middle of reading a number of the package review pages while I
did this, and got to the maintainer page somewhere along the line, I think.  I'm
not sure I'd be a good maintainer for this in the long run, though; I know perl
pretty well, but neither c nor the .xs stuff that binds them together.  I just
saw that this was needed, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling.  I would think
a maintainer should be qualified to audit the changes in updates to the code in
the package s/he maintains?  I'm not.  If, on the other hand, all you really
need to know is the packaging process, I could be up for that.

To be quite honest, I was wondering why he had it on that webfactional.com page
instead of CPAN, but I didn't think to check on CPAN too.  1.6.1-2 coming right up!

I have contacted Nils Philippsen, maintainer of gtkimageview, about this.  He
seems willing to push the gtkimageview-1.6.[01] update soon.  Should another bug
be opened for that, or is the suggestion enough?

Oops, referred to wrong package above.  I meant 0.04-2 coming right up, of course.

...and here they are.
Spec URL: http://www.ghiapet.net/pub/ghiapet/linux/9/perl-Gtk2-ImageView.spec
SRPM Url:
http://www.ghiapet.net/pub/ghiapet/linux/9/source/SRPMS/perl-Gtk2-ImageView-0.04-2.f9.gp.src.rpm

I thought the point of this whole exercise was a review of perl-Gtk2-ImageView.
As I said, the prerequisites actually need to make it into the distribution
before this can be reviewed.  If you want to open a ticket against gtkimageview
and have this ticket depend on that one, that's fine but not really necessary. 
If you don't, then please do update this ticket to indicate that the package can
be reviewed.

The necessary gtkimageview update has been built on koji now, and should soon be
in testing.

F9  URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=54802
F10 URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=54791

These are to pages with links to the packages, not the packages themselves.

gtkimageview-1.6.1-1 is now in testing, and I've built an F9 perl-Gtk2-ImageView
against it on koji.

perl-Gtk2-ImageView-0.04-3:
F9 URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=699065

I now have the latest builds, SRPMS, & specfile up on my FedoraPeople page, and
ready for review.
http://jrowens.fedorapeople.org/perl-Gtk2-ImageView/

Created attachment 314227 [details]
local rebuild log of 0.04-3 on rawhide i386 machine

For 0.04-3:

* License
  - As far as I checked the whole code, the license tag must be
    "LGPLv3+".

* %SOURCE0
  - Please use %version macro. With this you probably won't have to modify
    %SOURCE9 URL when the version is upgraded.

  - The tarball in your srpm does not coincide with what I could download
    from the URL written as %SOURCE0:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
44080 2008-03-18 04:42 Gtk2-ImageView-0.04.tar.gz
43947 2008-03-15 05:24 perl-Gtk2-ImageView-0.04-3.fc9/Gtk2-ImageView-0.04.tar.gz
-----------------------------------------------------------------

* BuildRequires
  - For perl module related Requires, please specify it by the virtual
    module names the rpms provide, not by using the rpms' name directly.
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides

    * e.g. Usually "BuildRequires: perl-Glib" should be
           "BuildRequires: perl(Glib)" or so.

* %check
  - %check fails on local build (log attached)
    Note that rpmbuild always unset DISPLAY env as:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rpm-tmp.54049
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd Gtk2-ImageView-0.04
+ unset DISPLAY
+ tty -s
+ make test
------------------------------------------------------------------
    For this package this seems to be leading to test failure.

* rpmlint issue

* Documents
  - Usually the file "INSTALL" is for the users who want to rebuild
    the package by themselves and is not needed for rpm users.
  - The file "MANIFEST" should be removed from %doc (actually rpmlint
    warns about this)

ping?

ping again?

ping again?

Closing as other person imported this package...

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 461976 ***