Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem.spec SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem-0.4.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Lasem is a library for rendering SVG and Mathml, implementing a DOM like API. It's based on GObject and use Pango and Cairo for the rendering. Fedora Account System Username: belegdol
Missing BuildRequires: gcc > BuildRequires: intltool I would add also BuildRequires: gettext > Requires: pkg-config Drop it > make %{?_smp_mflags} could be replaced with %make_build > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Drop it > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' find %{buildroot}%{_libdir} -type f -name '*.la' -delete -print > %find_lang %{name} --all-name I think --all-name is not needed, but not sure. > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %{buildroot} also would be great to do: %global apiver 0.4 and use it in %files.
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1) Thank you for taking the review! Please find my feedback below: > Missing BuildRequires: gcc Has something changed? I thought gcc was part of minimal buildroot and does not need to be required explicitly. In any case, something is pulling it in as the build is working. > > BuildRequires: intltool > I would add also BuildRequires: gettext Intltool pulls gettext by requiring gettext-devel, is an explicit requirement necessary? > > Requires: pkg-config > Drop it OK > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > could be replaced with %make_build OK, it was not in the template created by rpmdev-newspec on f22. > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > Drop it Why? rpmdev-newspec still put it in as of f24 > > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' > find %{buildroot}%{_libdir} -type f -name '*.la' -delete -print Why is this needed? The version I have now is what rpmdev-newspec as of f24 enters. > > %find_lang %{name} --all-name > I think --all-name is not needed, but not sure. I replaced it with %{name}-%{apiver} > > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 > %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 OK > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > %{buildroot} I prefer the variable format and as per current guidelines [1] both are acceptable. > > also would be great to do: %global apiver 0.4 and use it in %files. OK New releases: Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem.spec SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem-0.4.3-2.fc24.src.rpm [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
(In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #2) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1) > Thank you for taking the review! Please find my feedback below: > > > Missing BuildRequires: gcc > > Has something changed? I thought gcc was part of minimal buildroot and does > not need to be required explicitly. In any case, something is pulling it in > as the build is working. Something changed. Since (~ f23) it's required to put all BRs like gcc. > > > > BuildRequires: intltool > > I would add also BuildRequires: gettext > > Intltool pulls gettext by requiring gettext-devel, is an explicit > requirement necessary? No, hopefully at some point upstream will stop using intltool and we will switch to gettext. > > > > Requires: pkg-config > > Drop it > > OK > > > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > > could be replaced with %make_build > > OK, it was not in the template created by rpmdev-newspec on f22. rpmdev-newspec is completely outdated. > > > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > Drop it > > Why? rpmdev-newspec still put it in as of f24 It's not needed since ~ EL6. > > > > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' > > find %{buildroot}%{_libdir} -type f -name '*.la' -delete -print > > Why is this needed? The version I have now is what rpmdev-newspec as of f24 > enters. Not all packages maintained well. When you use -delete, it doesn't spawn any command, it just uses unlinkat(). > > > > %find_lang %{name} --all-name > > I think --all-name is not needed, but not sure. > > I replaced it with %{name}-%{apiver} > > > > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 > > %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 > > OK > %dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc > %dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html you don't need to do this. > > > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > %{buildroot} > > I prefer the variable format and as per current guidelines [1] both are > acceptable. hopefully it will be deprecated at some point. it's better to use %{buildroot}. but as you noted, it's up to you. > > > > > also would be great to do: %global apiver 0.4 and use it in %files. > > OK > > New releases: > Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem.spec > SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem-0.4.3-2.fc24.src.rpm > > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot. > 7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS Resolution: ALMOST GOOD
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > (In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #2) > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1) > > Thank you for taking the review! Please find my feedback below: > > > > > Missing BuildRequires: gcc > > > > Has something changed? I thought gcc was part of minimal buildroot and does > > not need to be required explicitly. In any case, something is pulling it in > > as the build is working. > Something changed. Since (~ f23) it's required to put all BRs like gcc. Thank you! Will add it. > > > > BuildRequires: intltool > > > I would add also BuildRequires: gettext > > > > Intltool pulls gettext by requiring gettext-devel, is an explicit > > requirement necessary? > No, hopefully at some point upstream will stop using intltool and we will > switch to gettext. If/when it happens BR adjustment will be necessary anyway, so I prefer to keep things as they are. > > > > Requires: pkg-config > > > Drop it > > > > OK > > > > > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > > > could be replaced with %make_build > > > > OK, it was not in the template created by rpmdev-newspec on f22. > rpmdev-newspec is completely outdated. > > > > > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > > Drop it > > > > Why? rpmdev-newspec still put it in as of f24 > It's not needed since ~ EL6. Didn't know that, thank you! Will change it. > > > > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' > > > find %{buildroot}%{_libdir} -type f -name '*.la' -delete -print > > > > Why is this needed? The version I have now is what rpmdev-newspec as of f24 > > enters. > Not all packages maintained well. When you use -delete, it doesn't spawn any > command, it just uses unlinkat(). Didn't know that either, thanks! Will change it too! > > > > %find_lang %{name} --all-name > > > I think --all-name is not needed, but not sure. > > > > I replaced it with %{name}-%{apiver} > > > > > > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 > > > %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}-0.4 > > > > OK > > > > %dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc > > %dir %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html > you don't need to do this. I think I do - otherwise the directory ownership guideline [2] might be violated I think. lasem puts files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc but does not depend on it, so it needs to own it. %doc only owns the lasem-0.4 folder. > > > > > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > > %{buildroot} > > > > I prefer the variable format and as per current guidelines [1] both are > > acceptable. > hopefully it will be deprecated at some point. it's better to use > %{buildroot}. but as you noted, it's up to you. Let's stay with variable version then. > > > > > > also would be great to do: %global apiver 0.4 and use it in %files. > > > > OK > > > > New releases: > > Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem.spec > > SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem-0.4.3-2.fc24.src.rpm > > > > [1] > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot. > > 7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS > > Resolution: ALMOST GOOD New releases: Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem.spec SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem-0.4.3-3.fc24.src.rpm [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function
> lasem.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblasem-0.4.so.4.0.3 exit.5 probably can be filled to upstream > lasem.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/lasem/COPYING MUST be filled bug to upstream. Every file in src/ has incorrect FSF address > I think I do - otherwise the directory ownership guideline [2] might be violated I think. lasem puts files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc but does not depend on it, so it needs to own it. %doc only owns the lasem-0.4 folder. I think with %doc it's not needed. There is bundled itex2mml in sources, add following: Licese: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ Provides: bundled(itex2mml) = 1.4.5 %license itex2mml/COPYING.itex2mml
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #5) > > lasem.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblasem-0.4.so.4.0.3 exit.5 > probably can be filled to upstream https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768591 > > lasem.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/lasem/COPYING > MUST be filled bug to upstream. Every file in src/ has incorrect FSF address https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768590 > > I think I do - otherwise the directory ownership guideline [2] might be violated I think. lasem puts files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc but does not depend on it, so it needs to own it. %doc only owns the lasem-0.4 folder. > I think with %doc it's not needed. Why? %doc or no %doc, files are getting placed in a folder which could be left dangling if package is uninstalled. > There is bundled itex2mml in sources, add following: > Licese: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ Not sure about this one... As per COPYING.itex2mml, itex2mml is tri-licensed: GPL, MPL and LGPL, with no version specified. On the other hand, licensecheck says it's GPLv3+ > Provides: bundled(itex2mml) = 1.4.5 > %license itex2mml/COPYING.itex2mml Agreed
New releases: Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem.spec SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/lasem/lasem-0.4.3-4.fc24.src.rpm I added itex2mml elements. Is there anything else?
* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -> %{buildroot}
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lasem
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0580653585
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-406d38c5ef
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4060940fc7
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0580653585
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-406d38c5ef
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4060940fc7
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
lasem-0.4.3-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.