Bug 454208
Summary: | Review Request: florence - Florence is an extensible scalable on-screen virtual keyboard for GNOME | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Simon <cassmodiah> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | low | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, i, mtasaka, notting, panemade, redhat-bugzilla | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2008-08-03 13:13:56 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: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Simon
2008-07-06 17:49:13 UTC
I made a big mistake please CANCEL review request I have to work on it Simon, if you are sure that you want this bug to be ignored, you can "close" it, by selecting "Resolve bug" (available below, under "Bug Status change"). However if you plan to come back with a revised spec, just leave it as it is and submit the new version when ready. Spec URL: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-2/florence.spec SRPM URL: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-2/florence-0.2.2-2.fc9.src.rpm Interesting package. Some random notes for 0.2.2-2: * License - As far as I checked the whole codes, the license tag should be "GPLv2+ and GFDL". * CFLAGS - The following lines: --------------------------------------------------------------- CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-$RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" export CFLAGS --------------------------------------------------------------- are redundant and should be removed (please check what %configure actually does by $ rpm --eval %configure ) * desktop-file-install usage --------------------------------------------------------------- desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" \ --dir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications \ %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop --------------------------------------------------------------- - You can use --delete-original option (please check $ desktop-file-install --help) * GConf scriptlets - For GConf scriptlets, please refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GConf %post scriptlet is missing - Also please add proper "Requires(pre)" or so. - We regards GConf schemas files as _not_ a configuration file so please remove %config(noreplace) attribution on GConf schemas file (even if rpmlint warns about it) * sed call on %post - Modifying %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/%{name}.schemas (using sed) must not be done on scriptlets but must be done before %install finishes. * Directory ownership issue - Please make it sure that all directories created when installing this package are correctly owned by this package. For example, the directory %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is not owned by any package. ! NOTE When you write ----------------------------------------------------------------------- %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_datadir}/%{name}/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This contains the directory %{_datadir}/%{name} itself and all files/ directories/etc under %{_datadir}/%{name}, while ----------------------------------------------------------------------- %files %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ contains the directory %{_datadir}/%{name} only. * Documents - Please add the following files to %doc: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ COPYING-DOCS NEWS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW the description "Florence is" is redundant for Summary. One more thing * Timestamps - Please consider to use ---------------------------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- to keep timestamps on installed files as much as possible. This method usually works for recent autotool based Makefiles. okay, i hope i got the trick. Spec URL: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-3/florence.spec SRPM URL: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-3/florence-0.2.2-3.fc9.src.rpm Well, * Scriptlets - Requires(preun): GConf is missing * %configure - --prefix=/usr is unneeded. Please check again what %configure does by $ rpm --eval %configure * Macros - Please use macros correctly ------------------------------------------------------------------- sed -i "s|@LAYOUTDIR@|/usr/share/florence|" ------------------------------------------------------------------- /usr/share must be %{_datadir} (rpm expands this correctly) * Directory ownership issue - This is not yet correctly fixed. For example the directory %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is not owned by any packages. * Some issues from build.log ------------------------------------------------------------------- 637 GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL is set, not installing schemas 638 ./../gconf-refresh 639 kill: usage: kill [-s sigspec | -n signum | -sigspec] pid | jobspec ... or kill -l [sigspec] 640 Unable to send HUP signal to gconf daemon. 641 Configuration will not be updated until reboot. 642 Florence may not function correctly before reboot. ------------------------------------------------------------------- - Calling "kill -HUP gconfd" command during build is not preferable. As this "gconf-refresh" script is not useful for building this package, please replace this script with some other command e.g. writing the following at %prep: ------------------------------------------------------------------- rm -f gconf-refresh ln -sf /bin/true gconf-refresh ------------------------------------------------------------------- - The other issue is ------------------------------------------------------------------- 259 keyboard.c:388: warning: implicit declaration of function 'layoutreader_readkeyboard' ------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you try to remove "implicit declaration of function' warning? c.f. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-March/msg02036.html (In reply to comment #8) > - The other issue is > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 259 keyboard.c:388: warning: implicit declaration of function > 'layoutreader_readkeyboard' > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Would you try to remove "implicit declaration of function' warning? > c.f. > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-March/msg02036.html Sorry, but fixing code has to be done by UPSTREAM and not by the maintainer which tries to get downstream hereby. It is a warning and fine. Maybe a bug report should be opened on upstream side's tracking tool, but he shouldn't be forced or bugged to fix the bugs/insanities of the upstream code. Otherwise the kernel package review will never succeed, if we're going to be downstream and upstream in Fedora of everything. (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > - The other issue is > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 259 keyboard.c:388: warning: implicit declaration of function > > 'layoutreader_readkeyboard' > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Would you try to remove "implicit declaration of function' warning? > > c.f. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-March/msg02036.html > > Sorry, but fixing code has to be done by UPSTREAM and not by the maintainer > which tries to get downstream hereby. It is a warning and fine. While "I said would you 'try'?", however I must note: GCC's 'warning' means 'serious bug' on many cases... Actually leaving the warnings of 'implicit declaration of function' sometimes causes segv on the application (and this happened on my package!!) and 'leave it to upstream, Fedora's maintainer won't fix it' can _never_ be Fedora's policy. Created attachment 312715 [details]
florence-0.2.2-warnings.patch
The attached patch should get rid about all compiler warnings for implicit
declarations and unused variables. Please review and forward to upstream.
SPEC: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-4/florence.spec SRPM: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-4/florence-0.2.2-4.fc9.src.rpm Do I have this right now? Well, for 0.2.2-4: * Patch name ------------------------------------------------------------- Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-warnings.patch ------------------------------------------------------------- - For the names of patches, you usually want not to use macros (especially %version). It often happens that you don't have to modify patches even if the tarball is upgraded. However if you use %{version} for patches' names, you have to recreate patches again even in such cases. * Modifying CFLAGS ------------------------------------------------------------- %configure CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} -Werror-implicit-function-declaration" export CFLAGS make %{?_smp_mflags} ------------------------------------------------------------- - Well, inserting CFLAGS in this method actually does _not_ change CFLAGS (see the result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=741776 ) The correct way is either - to export CFLAGS _before_ %configure (also please check what %configure does by $ rpm --eval %configure). This method is preferred than the latter. Recent autotool based Makefiles/configures usually accepts this method. - to use make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=XXXXXXXXX This method should be used when the former method does not work. * %files entry A. ------------------------------------------------------------- %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ %{_datadir}/%{name}/ ------------------------------------------------------------- - The entry %{_datadir}/%{name}/ contains the directory %{_datadir}/%{name} itself, so the first line is not needed (and should be removed) B. ------------------------------------------------------------- %{_datadir}/icons/* %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.svg ------------------------------------------------------------- - %{_datadir}/icons/* contains all directories under %{_datadir}/icons, for example /usr/share/icons/hicolor (please check the files entry by $rpm -ql florence). /usr/share/icons/hicolor and so on are already owned by hicolor-icon-theme and should not be owned by this package (the first line must be fixed) One more thing * desktop files - Category 'Application' is deprecated and should be removed (you can use --remove-category option) SPEC: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-5/florence.spec SRPM: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.2-5/florence-0.2.2-5.fc9.src.rpm Okay, then: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few (or no) work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------ I'm in a friendly contact with upstream. :-) SPEC: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.3-1/florence.spec SRPM: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.3-1/florence-0.2.3-1.fc9.src.rpm I will try to meet all your requirements. Okay, good: * This package itself is now good * I noticed that you have another review request (bug 454166), which I am actually reviewing but I didn't notice that the submitter is you... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This package (florence) is APPROVED by me ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join. from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". I noticed that you have already requested packager membership so now I am sponsoring you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. Removing NEEDSPONSOR. SPEC: http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.3-2/florence.spec SRPM:http://packages.cassmodiah.de/fedora/florence/bug-454208/florence-0.2.3-2/florence-0.2.3-2.fc9.src.rpm Is this still okay? Okay. Please follow "Join" wiki. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: florence Short Description: Extensible scalable on-screen virtual keyboard for GNOME Owners: cassmodiah Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. Please close this bug as NEXTRELEASE when you rebuilt this package on devel/F-9/F-8 and request on bodhi is done. Closing as rebuild and request on bodhi is done. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: florence New Branches: EL-6 Owners: cassmodiah CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: florence New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku Git done (by process-git-requests). |