Bug 737399
Summary: | Rename Review: gedit-latex - gedit plugin for editing latex documents | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ignacio Casal Quinteiro (nacho) <icq> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matěj Cepl <mcepl> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | mcepl, notting, package-review, pikachu.2014, sergio.pasra, susi.lehtola |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | mcepl:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2011-11-29 00:32:28 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
Ignacio Casal Quinteiro (nacho)
2011-09-11 21:02:22 UTC
Here is the built for x86_64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3343462 rpmlint info: gedit-latex.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gedit plugin for editing latex documents that's fine the name is gedit not Gedit gedit-latex.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2011-09-12 well, I'm counting it will be tomorrow the review ;) gedit-latex.x86_64: E: no-binary yeah that's fine, it is a python plugin gedit-latex.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fine gedit-latex.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/latex/util/eps2png.pl 0644L /usr/bin/perl fine gedit-latex-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2011-09-12 said gedit-latex-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package fine gedit-latex.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C gedit plugin for editing latex documents said gedit-latex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bibtex -> exhibit fine gedit-latex.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2011-09-12 said 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 4 warnings. This package is in fact already available in the Fedora repositories and theoritically still maintained: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gedit-latex-plugin You should contact its current maintainer and plan a real update of this package. ouch! my fault just looked for gedit-latex in koji. Reopening as we need to change the name of the package. I'll provide updated info. The previous links are updated now. Build in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3348057 rpmlint: gedit-latex.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gedit plugin for composing and compiling LaTeX documents it is gedit not Gedit. gedit-latex.x86_64: E: no-binary that's fine gedit-latex.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib not binary there. gedit-latex-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package that's fine. gedit-latex.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C gedit plugin for composing and compiling LaTeX documents said 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Let me add couple of quick notes before doing a proper review: First of all, who is sergiopr and what's his role in maintaing this package? Is he still the official maintainer of nor, or what? (In reply to comment #5) > gedit-latex.x86_64: E: no-binary > that's fine No, it isn't ... if gedit-latex is noarch (which I suspect it is), it should be noarch. Actually when looking through the build gedit-latex-3.1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm I don't see anything arch-specific, so this package should be noarch IMHO. The only problem is that there is a bug in spec not using standard Python macros. Specifically %{python_sitelib} should be used. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python for more details. > gedit-latex.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > not binary there. ditto > gedit-latex-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package > that's fine. ditto ... no debuginfo should happen, because this shouldn't be arch-specific package. ah! ok, first time I make a noarch package. I'll fix it next week thanks a lot for the review. I think the reason this is not noarch is because we need to use the libdir macro. (In reply to comment #8) > I think the reason this is not noarch is because we need to use the libdir > macro. a) why? b) I think %{_libdir} is available everywhere, for arch as well as for noarch. Try it. Hi, I'm sergiopr :) This review is for a package rename, from gedit-latex-plugin to gedit-plugin in F-17 and F-16. Ignacio, does the plugin work in F-15 or not? F-14 will continue providing gedit-latex-plugin I would like to comaintain this package once it's approved. The old package (gedit-plugin-latex) will be available in Fedora-14, that ships with a 2.x gedit (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > I think the reason this is not noarch is because we need to use the libdir > > macro. > > a) why? > b) I think %{_libdir} is available everywhere, for arch as well as for noarch. > Try it. This *needs* to be arch dependent, since %{_libdir} is /usr/lib on 32-bit and /usr/lib64 on (multiarched) 64-bit architectures. If you install to /usr/lib on 64-bit, the plugin won't work. As to the spec: the statement %dir %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex/* is a bit silly, since you can do the same thing with %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex or (somewhat more elaborately with) %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex/ (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > I think the reason this is not noarch is because we need to use the libdir > > > macro. > > > > a) why? > > b) I think %{_libdir} is available everywhere, for arch as well as for noarch. > > Try it. > > This *needs* to be arch dependent, since %{_libdir} is /usr/lib on 32-bit and > /usr/lib64 on (multiarched) 64-bit architectures. If you install to /usr/lib on > 64-bit, the plugin won't work. Hey, sorry for the delay. Yeah that's what I wanted to say that it needs to be arch dependent. > > As to the spec: the statement > %dir %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex > %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex/* > is a bit silly, since you can do the same thing with > %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex > or (somewhat more elaborately with) > %{_datadir}/gedit/plugins/latex/ Sure I'll fix this thanks. Updated package. Sames links. (In reply to comment #14) > Updated package. Sames links. Please bump the release and make a corresponding entry in the changelog every time you make changes to the spec file - also during the review. Otherwise it is impossible for other people (including the reviewer) to see what has happened with the spec file. - MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [matej@maceska task_3363917]$ rpmlint *.rpm ----------------- gedit-latex-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package Generation of debuginfo packages could be switched off (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons) by %global debug_package %{nil} ----------------- gedit-latex.i686: E: no-binary ----------------- gedit-latex.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib This is OK (this is actually noarch package in arch's clothing). 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings. [matej@maceska task_3363917]$ + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. There is a conflict with already existing package node, so rename is allowed. + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. tiny nitpicks - %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} === %setup -q (%{name}-%{version} is default) - sed -i -e 1d latex/util/eps2png.pl I would prefer sed -i -e '/^#!\/.*bin\/perl/d' latex/util/eps2png.pl or something similar. + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. + MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. MD5SUM: 262276187329b810143bdd712117ba87 + MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3363917 + 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. + MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. + 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. + MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. + MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. + MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. + MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. + MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. + MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. + MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. + MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. + MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. + SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. + SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. builds in koji + SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. + SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. + SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. + SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. + SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. + SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ------------ Please fix the issue with the debuginfo indicated in the first point. Otherwise, I think, we are almost there. By the way, can you make this to work if you just put everything in /usr/share/gedit/plugins? If not, you should file a bug against gedit, since it really shout support noarch plugins. Matěj: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages also needs to be taken into account. If this is supposed to replace gedit-plugins-latex, then it should Obsoletes: gedit-plugins-latex < %{version}-%{release} Provides: gedit-plugins-latex = %{version}-%{release} (In reply to comment #17) > By the way, can you make this to work if you just put everything in > /usr/share/gedit/plugins? > > If not, you should file a bug against gedit, since it really shout support > noarch plugins. This problem was reported upstream here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554535 To remove empty debuginfo package, add this line to the specfile %define debug_package %{nil} (In reply to comment #18) > Matěj: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages > > also needs to be taken into account. If this is supposed to replace > gedit-plugins-latex, then it should > Obsoletes: gedit-plugins-latex < %{version}-%{release} > Provides: gedit-plugins-latex = %{version}-%{release} Fixed. (In reply to comment #16) > - MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > [matej@maceska task_3363917]$ rpmlint *.rpm > ----------------- gedit-latex-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package > > Generation of debuginfo packages could be switched off > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons) > by > > %global debug_package %{nil} fixed > > ----------------- gedit-latex.i686: E: no-binary > ----------------- gedit-latex.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > This is OK (this is actually noarch package in arch's clothing). > > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings. > [matej@maceska task_3363917]$ > > + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > There is a conflict with already existing package node, so rename is allowed. > + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. > > tiny nitpicks > - %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} === %setup -q > (%{name}-%{version} is default) > - sed -i -e 1d latex/util/eps2png.pl > I would prefer > sed -i -e '/^#!\/.*bin\/perl/d' latex/util/eps2png.pl > or something similar. fixed > > + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines. > + MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > + MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in %doc. > + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > MD5SUM: 262276187329b810143bdd712117ba87 > + MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > Builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3363917 > + 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on > that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. > + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; > inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > + MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > + 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. > + MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > + 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is > considered a blocker. > + MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. > + MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) > + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. > + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > + MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition > of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to > size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). > + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime > of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run > properly if it is not present. > + MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > + MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > + MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), > then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel > package. > + MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} > + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be > removed in the spec if they are built. > + MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need > a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. > + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. > + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > + SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > + SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should > contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > builds in koji > + SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. > + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A > package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > + SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, > and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. > + SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package > using a fully versioned dependency. > + SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and > this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. > A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not > installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. > + SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, > /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file > instead of the file itself. > + SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it > doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. > > ------------ > Please fix the issue with the debuginfo indicated in the first point. > Otherwise, I think, we are almost there. btw, spec in the same link and http://people.gnome.org/~icq/gedit-latex-3.1.1-2.fc16.src.rpm for the new srpm. (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #17) > > By the way, can you make this to work if you just put everything in > > /usr/share/gedit/plugins? > > > > If not, you should file a bug against gedit, since it really shout support > > noarch plugins. > > This problem was reported upstream here: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554535 Then clearly you need to reopen the bug. The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard states 4.11. /usr/share : Architecture-independent data 4.11.1. Purpose The /usr/share hierarchy is for all read-only architecture independent data files. This hierarchy is intended to be shareable among all architecture platforms of a given OS; thus, for example, a site with i386, Alpha, and PPC platforms might maintain a single /usr/share directory that is centrally-mounted. Note, however, that /usr/share is generally not intended to be shared by different OSes or by different releases of the same OS. In any case this should be reopened under libpeas not gedit. And in meanwhile, this review is APPROVED. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gedit-latex Short Description: gedit plugin for composing and compiling LaTeX documents Owners: nacho sergiopr Branches: f16 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). What about closing this bug when the package is built? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12607 |