SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01300301-bookworm/bookworm-1.1.2-2.fc31.wef.src.rpm SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01300301-bookworm/bookworm.spec Description: Read the books you love without having to worry about the different format complexities like epub, pdf, mobi, cbr, etc. This version supports EPUB, MOBI, FB2, PDF, FB2 and Comics (CBR and CBZ) formats with support for more formats to follow soon. FAS Username: wef Successful build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/wef/bookworm/build/1300301/ I have another package under review as I await a sponsor: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276
>License: GPL-3 The proper identifier in Fedora is "GPLv3". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses Also, from upstream's meson.build: ># project name and programming language >project('com.github.babluboy.bookworm', ['vala', 'c'], > version: '1.1.2' >) I'm not sure if using the full name is a good idea here, since if you look into your built package, you'll see that the executable that's put in /usr/bin ends up called "com.github.babluboy.bookworm". While many packages in Fedora use reverse-domain-name full names for .desktop and .appdata.xml files, I'm not sure if any do that for the binaries and /usr/share stuff. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about the subject could share their opinion.
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #1) > >License: GPL-3 > The proper identifier in Fedora is "GPLv3". > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses > > Also, from upstream's meson.build: > ># project name and programming language > >project('com.github.babluboy.bookworm', ['vala', 'c'], > > version: '1.1.2' > >) > I'm not sure if using the full name is a good idea here, since if you look > into your built package, you'll see that the executable that's put in > /usr/bin ends up called "com.github.babluboy.bookworm". While many packages > in Fedora use reverse-domain-name full names for .desktop and .appdata.xml > files, I'm not sure if any do that for the binaries and /usr/share stuff. > Maybe someone more knowledgeable about the subject could share their opinion. This is the way all "made for elementary" / appcenter applications are set up. It's a bit unusual to also use the RDNN name for the executable, but since it works and the application is expected to be launched from a launcher anyway, it's not a problem. You can look at other elementary applications for examles of this. (That doesn't mean I agree with them on this decision - I'd much rather have an executable be named elementary-music instead of io.elementary.music, but that's upstream's decision, in the end. At least they have consistent guidelines for this stuff.)
- Be more specific than that: %{_bindir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm %{_datadir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.gschema.xml %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.svg %{_datadir}/applications/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.desktop %{_metainfodir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml - You need to handle the locales with %find_lang in %install %find_lang com.github.babluboy.bookworm […] %files -f com.github.babluboy.bookworm.lang - You need to Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories - Validate the desktop file: BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils […] desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.desktop - Validate the Appdata: BuildRequires: libappstream-glib […] appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml Validation will fail: + appstream-util validate-relax --nonet /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/bookworm-1.1.2-2.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/metainfo/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/bookworm-1.1.2-2.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/metainfo/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml: FAILED: ? tag-invalid : <release> version was duplicated ? tag-invalid : <release> versions are not in order [1.0.0 before 1.1.0] Validation of files failed See with upstream how to fix this. - Remove .wef: Release: 2%{?dist}.wef - Separate your %changelog entries by a new line - don't include Fedora release in changelog entry: * Wed Mar 11 2020 Bob Hepple <bob.hepple> - 1.1.2-2 - fix Source0 * Sat Feb 22 2020 Bob Hepple <bob.hepple> - 1.1.2-1 - Initial version of the package - Use a better name for your archive: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
https://github.com/babluboy/bookworm/pull/304
Thanks Robert-André Lots for me to fix here.
Latest build: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01324031-bookworm/bookworm.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01324031-bookworm/bookworm-1.1.2-3.fc31.src.rpm
LGTM, package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bookworm
FEDORA-2020-a329d03f1f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a329d03f1f
FEDORA-2020-82243dd394 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-82243dd394
FEDORA-2020-a329d03f1f has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-a329d03f1f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a329d03f1f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-82243dd394 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-82243dd394 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-82243dd394 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
There's an issue that fedora-review should have reported on the package: - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python27 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ I've opened Bug#1822231 to sort it out.
Good catch Petr, I totally missed that. I'll put this on hiatus until I can resolve it.
New build from current master - pre-release of 1.1.3 - fixes python2 problem SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01337284-bookworm/bookworm.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01337284-bookworm/bookworm-1.1.3-0.1.20200414git.c7c3643.fc31.src.rpm
Version 1.1.3 has reached stable status in Bodhi, so this bug should be closed.