Bug 666726 (amide)

Note:
Contact upstream about the patch.

The package build-requires ffmpeg-devel, so there is no chance to have it in Fedora. Let's see if we can build it without ffmpeg.

Live from FUDCon Tempe here are new packages with a ton of review fixes:

SRPM: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/amide-0.9.2-2.fc15.src.rpm
SPEC: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/amide.spec

OK - MUST: pmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/amide-*
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 0d40364f35011fd8a1a2e87512aceb1d
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK- MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package.
OK - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
OK - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin
OK - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.

APPROVED!

Great, Thanks a lot Christoph.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: amide
Short Description: A Medical Image Data Examiner
Owners: Susmit
Branches: f14
InitialCC:

Please fix the package owner to match the FAS account name.

My user name *is* susmit, is it case sensitive?

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: amide
Short Description: A Medical Image Data Examiner
Owners: susmit
Branches: f14
InitialCC:

(In reply to comment #8)
> My user name *is* susmit, is it case sensitive?

Yes.

Also, is the package amide or Amide? The summary and the package name don't match. ;(

I have updated the wiki with the information. It was no where mentioned in the wiki that these fields are case sensitive.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: amide
Short Description: A Medical Image Data Examiner
Owners: susmit
Branches: f14
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Sorry on the case sensitive fields.

Thank you very much. It has been pushed to koji.
CLosing as NEXTRELEASE.

Hi Susmit,

Sorry, but I would prefer if you did not push this into Fedora at the current time.

AMIDE is dependent on both the dcmtk and xmedcon libraries that are not currently in Fedora. Even though you can build amide without these libraries, it's close to useless without these libraries. It'd be like distributing a version of GIMP that couldn't read/write jpeg, png, or tiff. This is not the user experience that I want people to have with this application. I've been holding off on submitting this package myself for that very reason.

There's ongoing work to get DCMTK properly packaged for Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573910

If somebody wants to take on packaging xmedcon (http://xmedcon.sf.net), that'd also be useful.

Andy

Retired for time being.
Will take up again once xmedcon and DCMTK is packaged.

DCMTK is available in Fedora finally, so it's time to continue.

Thanks for the heads up, but xmedcon is still not.
I am not sure is that would be useful without it.
Andy?

Hey Susmit. I think getting AMIDE into Fedora should still wait on getting xmedcon into Fedora. Till then, people can just download the rpm package directly off the AMIDE website.

Hello,

xmedcon has been packaged in fedora. Susmit, would you continue with this package? If you don't want to, please close this ticket. I shall open a fresh ticket. 

Thanks,
Ankur

I have built amide with xmedcon and dcmtk now, see
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3302474

Ankur, please push xmedcon to F14-F15 updates released so I can build the other releases and then close this bug.

amide-0.9.2-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/amide-0.9.2-4.fc14

amide-0.9.2-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/amide-0.9.2-4.fc16

amide-0.9.2-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/amide-0.9.2-4.fc15

amide-1.0.0-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

amide-1.0.0-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

amide-1.0.0-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.