Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cherrytree.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cherrytree-0.99.48-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Hierarchical note taking application Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw
I think some modernizing is in order. > License: MPLv2.0 and MPLv1.1 and BSD and GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and AFL and ASL 2.0 This needs to be updated to SPDX. ref https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names > %patch01 -p1 > %patch02 -p1 > %patch03 -p1 > %patch09 -p1 > %patch10 -p1 > > %patch12 -p1 > %patch13 -p1 > %patch14 -p1 > %patch15 -p1 > %patch16 -p1 > %patch17 -p1 > %patch18 -p1 > %patch20 -p1 > # Fixes for ppc64 and s390x, there is no need to keep it in ifarch here since mozilla tests support ifarch conditions > %patch21 -p1 I wonder if you could replace all of this by using %autosetup? > # Prefer GCC for now > export CC=gcc > export CXX=g++ This is the default anyway. > export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" > export CXXFLAGS="$CFLAGS" > export LINKFLAGS="%{?build_ldflags}" > export PYTHON="%{python3}" I don't think any of this is necessary either. That's all I have for now.
Whoops, that last reply didn't belong there...
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90449086
Hi Jonathan This app has been rewritten in C++, but was in Fedora before: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cherrytree/blob/f30/f/cherrytree.spec Do you consider this as a new package or "retire from retirement" ? I don't know the way to proceed in such a case.
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages/#unorphaning_and_unretiring_packages Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cherrytree.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cherrytree-0.99.48-1.fc37.src.rpm
(In reply to Alain V. from comment #4) > Hi Jonathan > This app has been rewritten in C++, but was in Fedora before: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cherrytree/blob/f30/f/cherrytree.spec > > Do you consider this as a new package or "retire from retirement" ? > I don't know the way to proceed in such a case. Since it's the same package doing the same thing I think it should be unorphaned as normal. @Benson I'm not sure what you're getting at. Since it's been orphaned for more than 8 weeks it has to go through a new review.
Unofficial review: Pointing to the documentation on what needs to be done to unorphan. A regular review is needed. When running fedora-review got the following: Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cherrytree See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/FedoraPackaging/CherryTree/2115150-cherrytree/srpm- unpacked/cherrytree.spec Source checksums ---------------- https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xc7bf38ce0bd442c2369aa984 049128a20ce0648d#/gpgkey-C7BF38CE0BD442C2369AA984049128A20CE0648D.gpg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba440b327c21d59a46e7cb81d04c9b56b87179fe26 b29afb2af20c75e227359d https://github.com/giuspen/cherrytree/releases/download/0.99.48/cherrytree_0.99. 48.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9fcb29303c762d418214889d0eb92fef5c56e23391 15e007b6cc3ee9c1112902 https://github.com/giuspen/cherrytree/releases/download/0.99.48/cherrytree_0.99. 48.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4bba4f19d23560e8aa59f2ab1e76f128f7f02adaeb b5813e826e1753ee5d81fa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4bba4f19d23560e8aa59f2ab1e76f128f7f02adaeb b5813e826e1753ee5d81fa
Fixed checksum issue and added proper validation of AppData metainfo. Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cherrytree.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cherrytree-0.99.48-1.fc37.src.rpm Passes fedora-review muster now.
Hi Jonathan Ben did some work around this topic: https://github.com/funnelfiasco/copr-cherrytree/blob/master/cherrytree-future.spec Did you contact him ? Or share common views on packaging the C++ version ? @bcotton, do you take this review ?
Sorry, I don't have the time to take the review right now. I'm happy to have my Copr repo serve as inspiration if needed.
@bcotton it sort of did serve as inspiration. I think the main question at hand is does this have your blessing for someone else to review/approve since you used to maintain the official package (I think)?
I never maintained the package. I was going to submit it when upstream made an "official" release. But you don't need my permission to go forward with this.
@alain.vigne.14 can you finish the review on this?
(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #13) > @avigne (obfuscate my e-mail, please) can you finish the review on this? Working on it (don't know how to end testing your SRPM : mock --no-clean cherrytree-0.99.48-1.fc37.src.rpm does not have a /usr/bin/cherrytree when mock --shell :( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds is not very helpful. 1) I challenge your patch (Is this necessary ?) # add xml header to metainfo file Patch: metainfo_write.patch a- did you propose the patch upstream ? b- which tool is missing the XML header ? 2) It seems 7za is embedded (add_subdirectory(src/7za) in CMakeList) ? Would you mark this bundled() ? Can we bypass that ? Using Fedora p7zip is possible ? What is upstream position regarding embedding that piece of code ? 3) Licenses There are more licenses (Apache, BSD 3-Clause ..) due to the test suite (which is not activated, but you want that latter ?) Some LGPL v2 or later, LGPL v2.1 or later ... So, do you plan to extend the License field ? Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 1390 files have unknown license. 4) Some diff in MD5sum check error ? @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Comment: Hostname: -Version: Hockeypuck 2.1.0-176-g9a9ef76 +Version: Hockeypuck 2.1.0-166-geb2a11b xsBNBFZ2sDoBCACj2ptGY7OSq3H2An2L03hjmwF05mXNkG8lF4drSEUpXGePs+sw
Jonathan, now that upstream has a 1.0.0 release, are you still interested in adding this package to the repo? If you are, I'll try to find time in the next week to do a review if no one beats me to it. If you're not, I'll close this and submit a new review.
Spoke with Jonathan out of band. He's coming back to this as soon as time permits. Removing NEEDINFO For what it's worth, I spent some time this weekend trying to modify the upstream build to use external 7zip instead of the bundled version, but it doesn't look like the p7zip package in Fedora provides the necessary files in the built RPM. It might be possible to create a devel package for it, but I don't think that should block adding this package.
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.