Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/SDL2_ttf.spec SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This library allows you to use TrueType fonts to render text in SDL2 applications. Fedora Account System Username: spot Koji Rawhide Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6224124
actually SDL_ttf contains 2.0.11 of SDL2_ttf. Please fix this w/ Jon Ciesla. If he will downgrade SDL_ttf to 1.2.x tree, I will review this package.
Oh. I'm sorry. I'm stupid ;) Doing the review.
Fix some issues and go ;) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Use %make_install instead of make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install - Add to %prep "rm -rf external" for 100% dropping bundles - Do not own /usr/include/SDL2/ - Fix unused shlib dependency See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 652 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/brain/1034413-SDL2_ttf/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/SDL2(SDL2-devel) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2_ttf-devel-2.0.12-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-1.fc20.src.rpm SDL2_ttf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint SDL2_ttf SDL2_ttf-devel SDL2_ttf.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0.10.2 /lib64/libz.so.1 SDL2_ttf.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0.10.2 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 SDL2_ttf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- SDL2_ttf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SDL2_ttf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL2-devel(x86-64) SDL2_ttf(x86-64) libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(sdl2) Provides -------- SDL2_ttf: SDL2_ttf SDL2_ttf(x86-64) libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) SDL2_ttf-devel: SDL2_ttf-devel SDL2_ttf-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(SDL2_ttf) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_ttf/release/SDL2_ttf-2.0.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8728605443ea1cca5cad501dc34dc0cb15135d1e575551da6d151d213d356f6e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8728605443ea1cca5cad501dc34dc0cb15135d1e575551da6d151d213d356f6e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1034413 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
About license, I don't know is COPYING.txt license or we need to put zlib license separate ?
Hey guys, so what's the status of this bug? When can we expect a resolution? :P
With regards to your request that I use %make_install, I respectfully decline. Since they are identical, and I've had that pattern hammered into me for years now, I'll just keep using it. COPYING.txt is the zlib license, so it is sufficient. New SRPM: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc20.src.rpm New SPEC: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/SDL2_ttf.spec
okay. sounds good. APPROVED. Tom, add me as co-maintainer of this package. thanks.
I think you forgot to ask for the repository and build it :-) I am making some experimental SDL bindings, and did choose SDL2, so for now using the srpm from the review for SDL2_ttf.
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #8) > I am making some experimental SDL bindings, and did choose > SDL2, so for now using the srpm from the review for SDL2_ttf. I found this while looking for SDL2_ttf-devel. I'm a Fedora newb, so this comment tipped me in the right direction; thanks!
For the record, I also want SDL2_net in Fedora :-) Since I am a Fedora packager/contributor I may try to package it (SDL2_net) at some point, but would prefer to not interfere with the work you are already doing.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: SDL2_ttf Short Description: TrueType font rendering library for SDL2 Owners: spot ignatenkobrain Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc19
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc20
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
*** Bug 1089556 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***