Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gtef.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gtef-2.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Gtef is a library that eases the development of GtkSourceView-based text editors and IDEs. Gtef is the acronym for “GTK+ Text Editor Framework”. Fedora Account System Username: kalev Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18508948
The program has been renamed to Tepl in the meantime. https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/Tepl https://download.gnome.org/sources/tepl/ The current version is 2.99
Right. We still need gtef though to get latexila updated in F26.
LaTeXila has switched from Gtef to Tepl in Release 3.25.1 https://git.gnome.org/browse/latexila/tree/NEWS
Additional info: The requirements for LaTeXila Release 3.25.1 are fulfilled in F26. e.g. GtkSourceView >= 3.24 Compilation tests with LaTeXila 3.25.1 and Tepl 2.99.2 under F26 have been OK.
Fedora 26 has GNOME 3.24 and to match this we'll need to put latexila 3.24.x there which in turn requires gtef.
"LaTeXila follows the GNOME versions". With the motivation: It is easier to know with which GNOME version a certain LaTeXila version was developed against. https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/LaTeXila/History
Taking this review
Some initial review comments: - This BR is not needed: gcc http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - The last released version of gtef was 2.0.1 before the rename to Tepl. Please update spec and src.rpm to this version https://download.gnome.org/sources/gtef/2.0/gtef-2.0.1.tar.xz
Thanks! I've updated it to 2.0.1. The gcc BR is not strictly necessary as it's currently included in the default buildroot, but the packaging guidelines say that this can change over time and we should not rely on anything else beside RPM being there. Quoting: "You may assume that enough of an environment exists for RPM to function, to build packages and execute basic shell scripts, but you should not assume any other packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the buildroot by the build system may change over time." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Build-Time_Dependencies_.28BuildRequires.29 Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gtef.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gtef-2.0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 # See comment 9 above ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive". 139 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/fedora- review/1434578-gtef/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gir-1.0(gobject- introspection-devel, libgee-devel, gtk3-devel, atk-devel, gdk- pixbuf2-devel, gspell-devel), /usr/share/gtk-doc(harfbuzz-devel, libsecret-devel, gtk-doc, gtkspell3-devel), /usr/share/vala/vapi(vala, gspell-devel, gtksourceview3-devel, libgee-devel), /usr/libexec /installed-tests(graphene-tests, gdk-pixbuf2-tests, gvfs-tests, glib2-tests), /usr/share/installed-tests(gnome-weather-tests, libmediaart-tests, eog-tests, dbus-tests, gtk3-tests, cjs-tests, evolution-tests, glib2-tests, gvfs-tests, gnome-photos-tests, glib- networking-tests, clutter-tests, json-glib-tests, gnome- desktop3-tests, gdk-pixbuf2-tests, evolution-data-server-tests, pango- tests, gjs-tests), /usr/share/gtk-doc/html(harfbuzz-devel, libsecret- devel, gtk-doc, gtkspell3-devel), /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0(gspell, libgepub, gnome-autoar, libgee, libzapojit, gsound, libchamplain, gobject-introspection, GConf2, vte, libgnome-keyring, libgtop2, gdk- pixbuf2, gcr, libxklavier, libgdata, gtk2, gtk3, gnome-bluetooth-libs, grilo, gfbgraph, atk, libpeas, vte291, gnome-online-accounts), /usr/share/vala(vala, gspell-devel, gtksourceview3-devel, libgee- devel) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: 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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gtef- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1075200 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gtef-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm gtef-devel-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm gtef-tests-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm gtef-debuginfo-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm gtef-2.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm gtef.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gtef.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gtef-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gtef-tests.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gtef-tests.x86_64: W: no-documentation gtef-tests.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gtef-tests.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gtef-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gtef-debuginfo-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm gtef-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory gtef.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgtef-2.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgdk-3.so.0 gtef.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgtef-2.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 gtef.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgtef-2.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpango-1.0.so.0 gtef.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgtef-2.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0 gtef.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgtef-2.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libcairo-gobject.so.2 gtef.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgtef-2.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 gtef-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) gtef-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gtef-tests.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gtef-tests.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- gtef (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libuchardet.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gtef-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gtef-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gtef(x86-64) libgtef-2.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) pkgconfig(gtksourceview-3.0) pkgconfig(libxml-2.0) pkgconfig(uchardet) gtef-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gtef(x86-64) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libuchardet.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gtef: gtef gtef(x86-64) libgtef-2.so.0()(64bit) gtef-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gtef-debuginfo gtef-debuginfo(x86-64) gtef-devel: gtef-devel gtef-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(gtef-2) gtef-tests: gtef-tests gtef-tests(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/gtef/2.0/gtef-2.0.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8432f0f404b93e5a2702978b5f121b8f9ae2167c906e9f2ed7b5165142e27a4f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8432f0f404b93e5a2702978b5f121b8f9ae2167c906e9f2ed7b5165142e27a4f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1434578 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package OK Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21106726
Excellent, thanks for the review!
I've submitted tepl for review as well now, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507303