Spec URL: http://johnford.org/wxHexEditor.spec SRPM URL: http://johnford.org/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: wxHexEditor is a graphical hex editor that I like Fedora Account System Username: jhford (also have john64, but not using it any more) This is not my first package, but the first in just under 10 years. It is the first time using a new FAS account "jhford", which is what I'd rather use from now on. The docs said to include background information which might be relevant. I have worked for Mozilla on the release engineering team, the Firefox OS build team and currently on our CI platform. I have been doing peer review for software for the last 10 years. I tried to follow the various packaging docs as best as I could, but there's 5 different wiki pages to follow. I cannot find contact details for the author of the tool, so I haven't been in touch yet. There's 3 patches relating to the build system. I would like to upstream them, but they're so specific to building that they're not likely worth the effort unless the tool is packaged into Fedora. The license is slightly unclear... 5 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * 6 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License * 7 * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 * 8 * of the License. I used GPLv2 because I believe that to be accurate. I'm not sure what exactly is meant here, but I will clarify with the author if I can get in contact. I don't know if it was meant as "Either the GPLv2 or later" or not, so I'd like to be safe until I can clarify with the author. There's a failure on AArch64 and Armv7hl. I think it's in the base Wx Widget library, and I haven't dug into it yet. I will attach the errors to this bug (if I can) or I will comment with their contents. Apparently, I'm supposed to file a bug for this, but I suspect that I should wait for this package to be accepted (or rejected) before doing that. I'm not sure what to do about sha256. Should I download the tarball, compute the sha256 and manually validate it in the spec file, or is having a sha256 something that the Fedora infrastructure would take care of? Here's a link to a successful Koji run: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30074603
Created attachment 1491096 [details] AArch64 & Armv7hl g++ errors
Created attachment 1491097 [details] Spec File
Created attachment 1491098 [details] wxHexEditor-fix-desktop-file.diff
Created attachment 1491099 [details] wxHexEditor-fix-includes.diff
Created attachment 1491100 [details] wxHexEditor-install-p.diff
Created attachment 1491103 [details] Spec File v2 I just realised I was testing with Fedora 28's root and not Rawhide. When I tried in Rawhide, I hit this change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires Here's a new copy of the specfile. I submitted a build to Koji here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30075399
Please check this issues Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/FAL.h wxHexEditor- debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexDialogs.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditor.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorApp.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/HexEditorCtrl.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/HexEditorCtrlGui.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/wxHexCtrl/Tag.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/wxHexCtrl/TagDialogGui.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorCtrl/wxHexCtrl/wxHexCtrl.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorFrame.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexEditorGui.h wxHexEditor-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc28.x86_64/src/HexPanels.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - 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-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). none document file?
(In reply to Luis Segundo from comment #7) > Please check this issues > > Issues: > ======= > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Those header files aren't actually useful for development and this tool is not really intended to be a usable library as I understand. Since that package isn't something that I actually created myself, my expectation is that the Fedora system knows which header files are useful for creating a valid debugsource package. I couldn't find further information on exactly what should be in the debugsource package, but using an example of Firefox, $ rpm -qlp firefox-debugsource-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | grep "[.]h$" | head /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/aom/AccessibleNode.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/AccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/ApplicationAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/AtkSocketAccessible.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/DOMtoATK.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/DocAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/InterfaceInitFuncs.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/RootAccessibleWrap.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/nsMai.h /usr/src/debug/firefox-62.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64/accessible/atk/nsMaiHyperlink.h there are 11176 header files in that debugsource file as well as a bunch of cpp files. There's more info here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SubpackageAndSourceDebuginfo > - 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-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 On Fedora 29 and Rawhide, that's actually a requirement for a successful build. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot Since it's a no-op on Fedora 28, I suspect that it's not really worthwhile making conditional for Fedora 28. > - [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). That's because I switched to building the RPM using the rawhide mock configuration which generated a file with fc30 in the path and forgot to put a new link to the package. The correct link is http://johnford.org/wxHexEditor-0.24-1.fc30.src.rpm and I have deleted the fc28.src.rpm file from my server. I have updated the Spec and Srpm which the links point to, and I'll upload a new spec file shortly. > none document file? There aren't really any documentation files as such. The README.md file contains nothing useful, though I did fine a GPL.txt and Change.log file in the repository which I've updated the spec file to include.
Created attachment 1493390 [details] Spec File v3
Your last SPEC file must be an error because it's worse than the previous. Please upload the correct file, it would be better on an external server and not as an attachment please. jhford is not a member of the packager group whereas john64 is, ask infra(not sure if it's them?) to transfer your membership to your new account. %setup -q %patch0 -p1 %patch1 -p1 %patch2 -p1 → Use %autosetup -p1 Give your archive a meaningful name: Source0: https://github.com/EUA/wxHexEditor/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Remove: ExcludeArch: aarch64 ExcludeArch: armv7hl And backport this patch to fix the build: https://github.com/EUA/wxHexEditor/commit/d0fa3ddc3e9dc9b05f90b650991ef134f74eed01
Not needed: \ %{?_smp_mflags} It's already into %make_build
Sorry I didn't mean to be rude. The file you last uploaded seems to be an error because it is less detailed than the previous on. See: Name: wxHexEditor Version: 0.24 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: a free hex editor / disk editor for Linux, Windows and MacOSX License: GPLv2.0 URL: https://wxhexeditor.org Source0: https://github.com/EUA/wxHexEditor/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz BuildRequires: wxGTK3-devel Requires: wxGTK3 %description a free hex editor / disk editor for Linux, Windows and MacOSX %prep %setup -q %build make %{?_smp_mflags} %install %make_install %files %doc %changelog It's missing The %files section and the %build seems to be the default stuff, rot like the more specific you uploaded previously.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.