Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv-0.9.1-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Vimiv is an image viewer with vim-like keybindings. It is written in python3 using the Gtk3 toolkit. Some of the features are: - Thumbnail mode - Simple library browser - Basic image editing - Command line with tab completion Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha There's a COPR for people to try out the package here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ankursinha/vimiv/
Shall it have recommended dependency on python3-gexiv2? I've noticed that it tries to import it in runtime: https://github.com/karlch/vimiv/blob/cedbeac80e89f21f67962976716823aea58451eb/vimiv/imageactions.py#L13
It should not have 755 mode on manpages and appdata.xml Also binary dependency libgexiv2 will be picked up implicitly (if you include python3-gexiv2)
Thanks for the comments, Sergey. Updated: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv-0.9.1-2.fc27.src.rpm New builds are ready on copr for testing too. Cheers! Ankur
Could you also update all python dependencies to new format[1]? Requires: %{py3_dist gexiv2} But in general it looks good to me. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names
I wasn't aware of these new macros, and it does look like they're not respected by all packages just yet: [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk ~]$ rpm -q --provides python3-setuptools python3-setuptools = 36.2.0-7.fc27 python3.6dist(setuptools) = 36.2.0 python3dist(setuptools) = 36.2.0 [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk ~]$ rpm -q --provides python3-gexiv2 libgexiv2-python3 = libgexiv2-0.10.6 python3-gexiv2 = 0.10.6-3.fc27 python3-gexiv2(x86-64) = 0.10.6-3.fc27 [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk ~]$ rpm -q --provides python3-gobject python3-gobject = 3.26.1-1.fc27 python3-gobject(x86-64) = 3.26.1-1.fc27 asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk ~]$ sudo dnf install 'python3dist(gexiv2)' [sudo] password for asinha: Last metadata expiration check: 0:29:56 ago on Fri 24 Nov 2017 13:39:26 GMT. No match for argument: python3dist(gexiv2) Error: Unable to find a match [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk ~]$ sudo dnf install 'python3dist(libgexiv2)' Last metadata expiration check: 0:30:46 ago on Fri 24 Nov 2017 13:39:26 GMT. No match for argument: python3dist(libgexiv2) Error: Unable to find a match [asinha@cs-as14aho-2-herts-ac-uk ~]$ sudo dnf install 'python3dist(gexiv)' Last metadata expiration check: 0:30:54 ago on Fri 24 Nov 2017 13:39:26 GMT. No match for argument: python3dist(gexiv) Error: Unable to find a match etc. Leaving it as is for the time being. Thanks, Ankur
This macro accessible starting from Fedora 26, do you target old releases? It should be just expanded to python3-gexiv2, so I don't think it will be recorded as is in the resulting RPM.
Well, as you see from the commands in my comment, on an F27 system, it is recorded in setuptools, and so it works there, but it isn't in the other two packages and fails---also causing all my copr builds to fail :(
Thanks @Sergey for looking for it! I had a look as well! Summary: ======= I found (nitpicks): - there are tests in tests/, can we run these in %check? - Can you use install -p to preserve timestamps? and fedora-review found, which is ok already: - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in vimiv See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database rpmlist found: - invalid-url URL: http://karlch.github.io/vimiv, but works for me Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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)", "Unknown or generated". 96 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/junghans/review/review-vimiv/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. [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 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [!]: %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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: vimiv-0.9.1-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm vimiv-debuginfo-0.9.1-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm vimiv-0.9.1-2.fc27.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: vimiv-debuginfo-0.9.1-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory vimiv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://karlch.github.io/vimiv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> vimiv.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://karlch.github.io/vimiv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- vimiv-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vimiv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 config(vimiv) gtk3 hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3-gexiv2 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- vimiv-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) vimiv-debuginfo vimiv-debuginfo(x86-64) vimiv: application() application(vimiv.desktop) config(vimiv) mimehandler(image/bmp) mimehandler(image/gif) mimehandler(image/jp2) mimehandler(image/jpeg) mimehandler(image/jpeg2000) mimehandler(image/jpx) mimehandler(image/png) mimehandler(image/svg) mimehandler(image/tiff) python3.6dist(vimiv) python3dist(vimiv) vimiv vimiv(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- vimiv: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/vimiv/_image_enhance.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/karlch/vimiv/archive/v0.9.1/vimiv-0.9.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7196341c41ad372f4d5d98bc96fba4aa55ad6e78d93afd617a62866bdaa6c087 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7196341c41ad372f4d5d98bc96fba4aa55ad6e78d93afd617a62866bdaa6c087 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n vimiv Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #8) > Thanks @Sergey for looking for it! I had a look as well! > > > Summary: > ======= > I found (nitpicks): > - there are tests in tests/, can we run these in %check? The tests use Xvrb, and from the looks of it, it requires X running on the box? I can't manage that on the Fedora builders. > - Can you use install -p to preserve timestamps? Done. > and fedora-review found, which is ok already: > - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package > contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. > Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in vimiv > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- > database Done. New spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc27.src.rpm * Sun Dec 10 2017 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.9.1-4 - Remove tests - Xvfb seems to require root access and X * Sun Dec 10 2017 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.9.1-3 - Add tests and other corrections based on rhbz #1517006 - update-desktop-database - preserve timestamps Cheers! Ankur
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #9) > (In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #8) > > Thanks @Sergey for looking for it! I had a look as well! > > > > > > Summary: > > ======= > > I found (nitpicks): > > - there are tests in tests/, can we run these in %check? > > The tests use Xvrb, and from the looks of it, it requires X running on the > box? I can't manage that on the Fedora builders. Thank for the explanation! > New spec/srpm: > Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv.spec > SRPM URL: > https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc27.src.rpm > > * Sun Dec 10 2017 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.9.1-4 > - Remove tests - Xvfb seems to require root access and X > > * Sun Dec 10 2017 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.9.1-3 > - Add tests and other corrections based on rhbz #1517006 > - update-desktop-database > - preserve timestamps > > Cheers! > Ankur Approved.
Lovely! Thanks for the review! :)
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vimiv
vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0b7cfb18b1
vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-dde3662529
vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-0b7cfb18b1
vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-dde3662529
vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.