Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/libadwaita.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/libadwaita-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Building blocks for modern GNOME applications. Fedora Account System Username: atim
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=70744132
Some new versions of packages in Fedora already requires 'libadwaita'. Due lack of time HELPWANTED with packaging 'gi-docgen' additionally and build libadwaita with tests enabled. Fedora Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02302231-libadwaita/fedora-review/review.txt
Setting NEEDINFO for Kalev Lember, who is the maintainer of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libhandy and had expressed an intent to package libadwaita as its successor. Just making sure all concerned have a chance to take a look at this. I maintain https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/notejot/, which is one of the packages with updates blocked on libadwaita. I’m willing to review this, but I want to wait a little while for others’ feedback. (If somebody else wants to claim the review, that’s fine with me.)
Review request for gi-docgen: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976481
I’ve built gi-docgen for rawhide, and created updates for F34 (https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-70fb4a7d63) and F33 (https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2465e64478). You should be able to use this to generate the documentation. Please file issues if you run into any problems. ----- Please note that you must add > Requires: gi-docgen-fonts to any package containing documentation generated with gi-docgen. Since Fedora guidelines demand that I patch out the bundled web fonts from the upstream gi-docgen, this metapackage brings in the corresponding system fonts.
- I think 'Requires: vala' is needed for devel package. At minimum, %files devel should contain %dir %{_datadir}/vala. If vala presence is not required, I think Recommends: vala would still be useful. Since gi-docgen is packaged already, doc subpackage might be generated or documentation included into devel subpackage. Almost all seems good, just unowned %{_datadir}/vala has to be solved either by making it part of package or requiring vala. Otherwise it seems ready. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 327 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1975845-libadwaita/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vala I think Requires: vala is needed for devel package [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/vala/vapi(libgweather-devel, libgnome-games-support-devel, gupnp-devel, gitg-devel, libsoup-devel, libgda-devel, libosinfo-devel, caribou-devel, libdmapsharing-devel, gnome-online-accounts-devel, gmime30-devel, gtksourceview4-devel, libdazzle-devel, libgda-ui-devel, gspell-devel, libhandy-devel, tracker-devel, gcr-devel, template-glib- devel, vala, gnome-calculator-devel, libgexiv2-devel, gegl04-devel, gtksourceview3-devel, libtranslit-devel, libmanette-devel, librsvg2-devel, bamf-devel, gssdp-devel, libgdata-devel, libgnome- keyring-devel, folks-devel, babl-devel, appstream-devel, gedit-devel, ibus-devel, rygel-devel, gsound-devel, libzeitgeist-devel, gplugin- vala, jsonrpc-glib-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel, libdmapsharing4-devel, gmime-devel, libcanberra-devel, libgee06-devel, libgit2-glib-devel, geoclue2-devel, fwupd-devel, gnome-autoar-devel, libjcat-devel, zeitgeist-devel, libgee-devel, grilo-devel, vte291-devel, dconf-devel, libsecret-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 30720 bytes in 4 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Another alpha2 were seen on github [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [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: libadwaita-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libadwaita-devel-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libadwaita-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libadwaita-debugsource-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc35.x86_64.rpm libadwaita-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc35.src.rpm libadwaita.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adwaita-1-demo 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libadwaita-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libadwaita/-/archive/1.0.0-alpha.1/libadwaita-1.0.0-alpha.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 15b99dd4116bd0d8c6e98b2ec8867a254cd109d96c112096cf90a8cd5b764e24 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 15b99dd4116bd0d8c6e98b2ec8867a254cd109d96c112096cf90a8cd5b764e24 Requires -------- libadwaita (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfribidi.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(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) libgraphene-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libadwaita-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libadwaita(x86-64) libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(gtk4) libadwaita-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libadwaita-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libadwaita: libadwaita libadwaita(x86-64) libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libadwaita-devel: libadwaita-devel libadwaita-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libadwaita-1) libadwaita-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libadwaita-1.so.0-1.0.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libadwaita-debuginfo libadwaita-debuginfo(x86-64) libadwaita-debugsource: libadwaita-debugsource libadwaita-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1975845 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Java, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
New Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02343943-libadwaita/libadwaita.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02343943-libadwaita/libadwaita-1.0.0-0.2.alpha.1.fc35.src.rpm Important to have separate Doc package here since review tool complain: - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5130240 bytes in 642 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation Thanks for review.
It seems to me devel subpackage should also own gir-1.0 directory, but review package does not compliain about it. I guess it is covered indirectly via gtk4. It would not hurt explicitly owning parent directory. Since vala is required by devel, only files from this package need to be owned, not the directory itself. %files devel %dir %{_datadir}/gir-1.0 %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/*-%{apiver}.gir %{_datadir}/vala/vapi/%{name}-%{apiver}.* But those are just cosmetic changes. I think the package is ready, thank you for your contribution!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libadwaita
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3) > Setting NEEDINFO for Kalev Lember, who is the maintainer of > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libhandy and had expressed an intent to > package libadwaita as its successor. Just making sure all concerned have a > chance to take a look at this. Sorry for missing this one - I was on vacation. No complaints from me here :) Thanks for getting this one in, Artem!
FEDORA-2021-b8ff36e762 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b8ff36e762
FEDORA-2021-fa5960cc8c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fa5960cc8c
FEDORA-2021-fa5960cc8c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fa5960cc8c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fa5960cc8c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-b8ff36e762 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b8ff36e762 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b8ff36e762 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-b8ff36e762 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-fa5960cc8c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.