Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl-2.0.5-1.20211231.git99ddf1f.fc35.src.rpm Description: A lightweight, simple, fast, feature-filled, and extremely extensible text editor written in C, and Lua, adapted from lite. Fedora Account System Username: alciregi Successful koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82510492
Hello Alessio, thank you for the package. I tried to install, and use it, and it works. > Version: 2.0.5 There is already version 2.1.0 https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/releases/tag/v2.1.0 That probably eliminates the need for packaging it via %global commit, I guess? > %description > A lightweight, simple, fast, feature-filled, and extremely > extensible text editor written in C, and Lua, adapted from lite. I would probably use the Overview text from README. https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl#overview > %license %{_docdir}/%{name}/licenses.md Maybe also %license LICENSE, just to be sure? Otherwise LGTM.
Thank you! New spec and srpm Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl-2.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Thank you for the update, There is a md5sum mismatch of the sources tarball Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/jkadlcik/2051643-lite-xl/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/archive/v2.1.0/lite-xl-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfc7559c9d984ef36a6ead724ef802966a02807ca92725cf670ef61340fa35fa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6317c1b7e4c59b41747604ec265c8415292c5d34d81bee8ddbf6ba2420292884 diff -r also reports differences Can you please take a look? It can be reproduced by `fedora-review -b 2051643`
> Summary: A lightweight text editor written in Lua, adapted from lite. > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable In the %files section, we are claiming ownership of the specific font file %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}.svg but we should probably claim ownership of the whole directory %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor > ISC License > ----------- > lite-xl-2.1.0/src/api/utf8.c > > MIT License SIL Open Font License 1.1 > ------------------------------------- > lite-xl-2.1.0/licenses/licenses.md The fedora-review tool finds also these two licenses. Should we include them in the License field?
Doing a scratch(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3) > Thank you for the update, > > There is a md5sum mismatch of the sources tarball I don't know what happened. Now it should be ok.
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #4) > but we should probably claim ownership of the whole directory > %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor Ok. > The fedora-review tool finds also these two licenses. Should we > include them in the License field? Done.
I noticed that 2.1.0 was failing to build for s390x and ppc64le architectures, probably due to this commit https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/commit/630ab0ab92f2ad0a29c301635ff24c384e749105 where s390x and ppc64le are not mentioned https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/blob/0fc793d1ae40ee1883aa6d8cac8659f48ee40e55/src/main.c#L85 So I added a patch file. I will contact upstream.
New spec and srpm Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl-2.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Thank you for the changes, > Issues: > ======= > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/jkadlcik/2051643-lite-xl/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Unfortunately, the fedora-review tool still complains about the MD5sum check error. The following things are minor and I won't block the review because of them but please consider ... > So I added a patch file. > I will contact upstream. Once you file an upstream issue or a PR, can you please link it in the spec file? So we can track when the downstream patch is no longer necessary. > Summary: A lightweight text editor written in Lua, adapted from lite. Summary shouldn't end with a period, rpmlint complains about it.
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #9) > Unfortunately, the fedora-review tool still complains about the > MD5sum check error. Mmm. I think that it is an upstream issue. Lite XL v2.1.0 is still marked as Pre-release If you look at the Assets on the github page (https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/releases/tag/v2.1.0), the source archives were updated some hours ago. Maybe we should wait for the final release?
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #9) > > So I added a patch file. > > I will contact upstream. > > Once you file an upstream issue or a PR, can you please link it in the > spec file? So we can track when the downstream patch is no longer > necessary. Yes. For reference: https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/issues/1148 Btw, upstream seems to have provided a solution. > > Summary: A lightweight text editor written in Lua, adapted from lite. > > Summary shouldn't end with a period, rpmlint complains about it. Whoops.
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #4) > > ISC License > > ----------- > > lite-xl-2.1.0/src/api/utf8.c > > > > MIT License SIL Open Font License 1.1 > > ------------------------------------- > > lite-xl-2.1.0/licenses/licenses.md > > > The fedora-review tool finds also these two licenses. Should we > include them in the License field? the code that is suppose to be ISC licensed is actually MIT and had been wrongly put in place. upstream corrected the license and licensecheck now properly reports it as MIT.
> > Unfortunately, the fedora-review tool still complains about the > > MD5sum check error. > > Mmm. I think that it is an upstream issue. I don't think so. When I download your spec file, your patch, and let rpmbuild to download the sources automatically, then the generated SRPM doesn't have this checksum mismatch. Is it possible that you have some outdated or wrong sources tarball in your ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ directory? I would try to remove it and download it again.
(In reply to Alessio from comment #5) > Doing a scratch(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3) > > Thank you for the update, > > > > There is a md5sum mismatch of the sources tarball > > I don't know what happened. Now it should be ok. Looked into it 2.1.0 was an accidental release that happened because of changes to their automated workflow. now the 2.1.0 tag is constantly being moved to the latest master to give people test build to try out. I'd suggest staying away from that tag for now.
(In reply to Jan Drögehoff from comment #14) > Looked into it > 2.1.0 was an accidental release that happened because of changes to their > automated workflow. > now the 2.1.0 tag is constantly being moved to the latest master to give > people test build to try out. > > I'd suggest staying away from that tag for now. Thanks @sentrycraft123 Let's put the package review on hold until a new stable version will be released. @jkadlcik do you agree?
> Let's put the package review on hold until a new stable version will be released. @jkadlcik do you agree? Agreed. Sorry Alessio, that I suggested the update from your original 2.0.5 package which worked :-/
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #16) > Sorry Alessio, that I suggested the update from your original 2.0.5 package > which worked :-/ Nah! No problem.
2.1.0 finally released
Thank you @sentrycraft123 New spec and srpm Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl-2.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
(In reply to Alessio from comment #19) > Thank you @sentrycraft123 > > New spec and srpm > > Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl.spec > SRPM URL: > https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl-2.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Haven't ran this this through fedora-review but I have one improvement to suggestion and one question: - lua, freetype2, pcre2 and sdl2 dependencies should be expressed using Pkgconfig Build Dependencies since that is what meson consumes. [1] - is the `--buildtype=release` intentional? %meson already sets all required flags and sets the buildtype to plain so that meson does not attempt to override any of them. [2] [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/ [2] https://mesonbuild.com/Quick-guide.html#using-meson-as-a-distro-packager
(In reply to Jan Drögehoff from comment #20) > - lua, freetype2, pcre2 and sdl2 dependencies should be expressed using > Pkgconfig Build Dependencies since that is what meson consumes. So, is this correct? BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: meson BuildRequires: pkgconfig(lua) >= 5.4 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpcre2-8) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(freetype2) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(sdl2) BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils Thanks.
(In reply to Alessio from comment #21) > So, is this correct? > > BuildRequires: gcc > BuildRequires: meson > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(lua) >= 5.4 > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpcre2-8) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(freetype2) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(sdl2) > BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils > > Thanks. Apologies for the delay It looks correct Though to be sure I would make it == and not >= since the minor Lua versions are incompatible with each other and who knows what Lua 5.5 will bring.
(In reply to Jan Drögehoff from comment #22) > It looks correct > Though to be sure I would make it == and not >= since the minor Lua versions > are incompatible with each other and who knows what Lua 5.5 will bring. So, I think that it's better to use BuildRequires: (pkgconfig(lua) >= 5.4 with pkgconfig(lua) < 5.5) Since pkgconfig(lua) == 5.4 doesn't find a corresponding package (since lua is at version 5.4.4) What do you think? Thanks.
(In reply to Alessio from comment #23) > (In reply to Jan Drögehoff from comment #22) > > It looks correct > > Though to be sure I would make it == and not >= since the minor Lua versions > > are incompatible with each other and who knows what Lua 5.5 will bring. > > So, I think that it's better to use > BuildRequires: (pkgconfig(lua) >= 5.4 with pkgconfig(lua) < 5.5) > > Since pkgconfig(lua) == 5.4 doesn't find a corresponding package (since lua > is at version 5.4.4) > > What do you think? Yeah, that should work. Lua doesn't have a history of breaking with patch releases, so freezing the major and minor should be fine.
> [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. In this case, the licensing is self-explanatory, but can you please document it anyway, so we comply with the guidelines? > [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > Note: Package contains font files Can we not install them? [jkadlcik@zeratul ~]$ rpm -ql lite-xl |grep ttf /usr/share/lite-xl/fonts/FiraSans-Regular.ttf /usr/share/lite-xl/fonts/JetBrainsMono-Regular.ttf /usr/share/lite-xl/fonts/icons.ttf Ideally, we would like to require or recommend them as a dependency. --- I think none of these is a blocker and can be done afterward. 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 153 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2051643-lite-xl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor(qtl866, qemu-common, qmmp, nedit, android- file-transfer, budgie-control-center-common, autokey-common, lammps- data, hicolor-icon-theme, vim-X11, massif-visualizer, xephem, freedroidrpg, vacuum-im, wesnoth-data, mono-tools, xchm, redeclipse, pdfmod, fedora-logos, swappy, wdisplays, klatexformula, budgie- desktop, kgraphviewer, tuxanci), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable(qucs-s, qtl866, eom, dxf2gcode, qemu-common, qmmp, budgie-control-center-common, autokey-common, hicolor-icon-theme, lxqt-powermanagement, korganizer, massif- visualizer, freedroidrpg, pdfmod, fedora-logos, swappy, wdisplays, klatexformula, budgie-desktop, tuxanci), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(qucs-s, qtl866, eom, dxf2gcode, qemu-common, qmmp, budgie-control-center-common, autokey-common, hicolor-icon-theme, qucs, korganizer, massif-visualizer, freedroidrpg, pdfmod, fedora-logos, swappy, wdisplays, klatexformula, budgie- desktop, tuxanci) [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]: 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 51200 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]: 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 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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [x]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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 1085440 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 lite-xl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lite-xl 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/archive/v2.1.0/lite-xl-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 761d390d0ef2706eeed1c685211d8ff5ce63dacd51d561e56c7e0f7ec0e7ea62 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 761d390d0ef2706eeed1c685211d8ff5ce63dacd51d561e56c7e0f7ec0e7ea62 Requires -------- lite-xl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) liblua-5.4.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre2-8.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lite-xl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lite-xl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lite-xl: application() application(org.lite_xl.lite_xl.desktop) lite-xl lite-xl(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.lite_xl.lite_xl.appdata.xml) mimehandler(inode/directory) mimehandler(text/plain) lite-xl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lite-xl-debuginfo lite-xl-debuginfo(x86-64) lite-xl-debugsource: lite-xl-debugsource lite-xl-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2051643 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, fonts, R, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #26) > > [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > > must be documented in the spec. > > In this case, the licensing is self-explanatory, but can you please > document it anyway, so we comply with the guidelines? > Yes. Something like # The entire source is MIT, except: # fonts/FiraSans-Regular.ttf and fonts/JetBrainsMono-Regular.ttf # that are SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1 > > [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > > Note: Package contains font files > > Can we not install them? > > [jkadlcik@zeratul ~]$ rpm -ql lite-xl |grep ttf > /usr/share/lite-xl/fonts/FiraSans-Regular.ttf > /usr/share/lite-xl/fonts/JetBrainsMono-Regular.ttf > /usr/share/lite-xl/fonts/icons.ttf > > Ideally, we would like to require or recommend them as a dependency. Do you mean a lite-xl subpackage?
> Yes. Something like Yep, exactly :-) > Do you mean a lite-xl subpackage? Not really. I mean, can we depend on these packages? $ rpm -ql jetbrains-mono-fonts |grep JetBrainsMono-Regular /usr/share/fonts/jetbrains-mono-fonts/JetBrainsMono-Regular.otf $ rpm -ql mozilla-fira-sans-fonts |grep FiraSans-Regular /usr/share/fonts/mozilla-fira/FiraSans-Regular.otf etc (Not sure what font is the icons.ttf).
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #28) > Not really. I mean, can we depend on these packages? > > $ rpm -ql jetbrains-mono-fonts |grep JetBrainsMono-Regular > /usr/share/fonts/jetbrains-mono-fonts/JetBrainsMono-Regular.otf > > $ rpm -ql mozilla-fira-sans-fonts |grep FiraSans-Regular > /usr/share/fonts/mozilla-fira/FiraSans-Regular.otf all the fonts have a hardcoded data path [1]. The solution to this would to either symlink the fonts into place or patch the code. > etc (Not sure what font is the icons.ttf). icons.ttf is generated using the Fontello service using an existing config file[2]. It only includes a few Fontawesome icons and the basic shapes that make the Lite-XL logo making it SIL OFL 1.1 [1] https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/blob/c8e525c126fd15951a3c37d6652581406e7c6038/data/core/style.lua#L25-L29 [2] https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/blob/c8e525c126fd15951a3c37d6652581406e7c6038/scripts/fontello-config.json
> all the fonts have a hardcoded data path [1]. > The solution to this would to either symlink the fonts into place or > patch the code. Then I guess it is easiest to just keep it as is and install them within this package. At least until someone changes the upstream code. However, I think it would be a good idea to add an explanation to the spec file somewhere around here %files ... %{_datadir}/%{name} But it can be done afterward. This ticket already has fedora-review+, you can continue and request the DistGit repository and so on.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lite-xl
FEDORA-2022-f4a81b6f19 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f4a81b6f19
FEDORA-2022-f4a81b6f19 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-c8045b2af5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c8045b2af5
FEDORA-2022-c8045b2af5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-c8045b2af5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c8045b2af5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-c8045b2af5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.