Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.5-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: SILE is a typesetting system; its job is to produce beautiful printed documents. Conceptually, SILE is similar to TeX—from which it borrows some concepts and even syntax and algorithms—but the similarities end there. Rather than being a derivative of the TeX family SILE is a new typesetting and layout engine written from the ground up using modern technologies and borrowing some ideas from graphical systems such as InDesign. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
Updated to version 0.14.9, new SRPM URL: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.9-1.fc36.src.rpm
Updated to version 0.14.10, new SRPM URL: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.10-1.fc38.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6300310 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149698-sile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06300310-sile/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
- Please use autochangelog/autorelease - Requires: libtexpdf = %{version} -> should include arch: Requires: libtexpdf%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - Why is this bundled? Was it modified by the project? Provides: bundled(lua-lunamark) - Same question about libtexpdf %package -n libtexpdf Summary: bundled with SILE It seems that it is straight taken from another repo. Why don't you package it separately? Also that Summary is a no go. We don't care about the fact that it is bundled in the summary, the user needs to know what this package do. I saw https://github.com/sile-typesetter/libtexpdf/issues/25 and it seems there is no release tarball anymore, but you can still grab an archive from a commit. I saw this too https://github.com/sile-typesetter/libtexpdf/issues/3#issuecomment-1301767989 but there is a cmake script now and you only need zlib and libpng. Please consider it.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) > - Please use autochangelog/autorelease I will update the spec. > - Requires: libtexpdf = %{version} > > -> should include arch: Yes, arch should also be included. > > > Requires: libtexpdf%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > - Why is this bundled? Was it modified by the project? I think it is extracted from Tex Live into its own git repo by the SILE team. This git repo have no releases. This git repo have only been integrated with SILE as a git submodule. > > Provides: bundled(lua-lunamark) > > - Same question about libtexpdf Seems like they are working on unbundling lunamark: https://github.com/sile-typesetter/sile/issues/669 > > %package -n libtexpdf > Summary: bundled with SILE > > It seems that it is straight taken from another repo. Why don't you package > it separately? > > Also that Summary is a no go. We don't care about the fact that it is > bundled in the summary, the user needs to know what this package do. That is a good point. > > I saw https://github.com/sile-typesetter/libtexpdf/issues/25 and it seems > there is no release tarball anymore, but you can still grab an archive from > a commit. > > I saw this too > https://github.com/sile-typesetter/libtexpdf/issues/3#issuecomment- > 1301767989 but there is a cmake script now and you only need zlib and libpng. > > Please consider it. I will try to package it directly from the commit that is used by SILE.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) > I saw this too > https://github.com/sile-typesetter/libtexpdf/issues/3#issuecomment- > 1301767989 but there is a cmake script now and you only need zlib and libpng. Seems like cmake is broken in libtexpdf https://github.com/sile-typesetter/libtexpdf/issues/28
Do you have a sample of the SPEC you've written for libtexpdf?
Ok let's check this SPEC: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/libtexpdf/ It's based on the Meson PR on the repository. Check if it build with Sile.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #7) > Do you have a sample of the SPEC you've written for libtexpdf? This was what I started with https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/libtexpdf.spec
Hey, upstream SILE and libtexpdf maintainer here. Long term I 100% agree that getting the libtexpdf projects split out into its own project is the goal we want to achieve, but we're not there yet. We already have it as a separate Git repository because we knew we wanted to allow it to be independent, but it really isn't there yet. To date it has no stand-alone releases and the Makefile even makes assumptions about being a submodule of the SILE repository. Until it has it's own releases and fully stand alone build system I would suggest just building with it being installed as part of the SILE package. As soon as it does have it's own tagged releases then a new package could provide the library and the SILE package could be changed to depend on it.
Based on the feedback from upstream, I would like to keep SILE and libtexpdf in the same spec/build. I updated SILE to the latest version 0.14.12 and made changes based on the review. Could you have another look? Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.12-1.fc38.src.rpm Build result: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonny/SILE/build/6571793/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6575034 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149698-sile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06575034-sile/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Could you have a new look at this review Robert-André Mauchin please :)? It is the last package needed for SILE to work on Fedora.
Updated to version 0.14.14, new SRPM URL: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.14-1.fc39.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonny/SILE/build/6822153/
Created attachment 2006254 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6575034 to 6823507
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6823507 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149698-sile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06823507-sile/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Updated to version 0.14.16, new SRPM URL: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.16-1.fc39.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonny/SILE/build/6970514/
Updated to version 0.14.17, new SRPM URL: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.17-1.fc39.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonny/SILE/build/7000270/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7000855 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149698-sile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07000855-sile/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Created attachment 2015841 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7000855 to 7000856
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7000856 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149698-sile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07000856-sile/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
What should be happening next here, how do we move this forward?
(In reply to Caleb Maclennan from comment #22) > What should be happening next here, how do we move this forward? If you have time then one solution could be that you join as a package maintainer, I can help and sponsor you. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#comaintainer As a bonus both of us can bump the version of SILE and it's dependencies.
Wow, this is ridiculous, but okay I'm game. It looks like the thing to do is have *you* open a "co-maintainer request for..." issue to get the ball rolling. I am @caleb on the Fedora Pagure instance and in the Fedora Account System.
(In reply to Caleb Maclennan from comment #24) > Wow, this is ridiculous, but okay I'm game. > > It looks like the thing to do is have *you* open a "co-maintainer request > for..." issue to get the ball rolling. I am @caleb on the Fedora Pagure > instance and in the Fedora Account System. Yes, it would be great if the peer review system was not this strict, I have opended a ticket here https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/678
We need to understand the Rust package guidelines for SILE 0.15 located here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/
Following the Rust guidelines shouldn't be too hard. SILE doesn't have any patched or forked or Git dependencies, only tagged release crates. It also doesn't have anything too exotic, I doubt more than a handful of them would be unique to SILE and not already packaged. That being said I might suggest going ahead with the v0.14.x package since you already have all the Lua dependencies approved and the packaging worked out, and then we can bump it to v0.15.x as soon as we sort out the Rust situation.
Yes, the latest version is a SHOULD and not a MUST, so we can start with v0.14.x and then get the Rust packages added and then upgrade to v0.15.x.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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 171483 bytes in 4 files. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [!]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtexpdf , libtexpdf-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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 6287360 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: sile-0.14.17-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libtexpdf-0.14.17-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libtexpdf-devel-0.14.17-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm sile-debuginfo-0.14.17-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm sile-debugsource-0.14.17-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm sile-0.14.17-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0izuq0ye')] checks: 31, packages: 6 sile.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sile/i18n/gu.ftl sile.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sile/i18n/jv.ftl sile.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sile/i18n/my.ftl sile.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sile/i18n/or.ftl sile.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sile/i18n/pa.ftl sile.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sile/i18n/sa.ftl sile.spec:66: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(lua-lunamark) sile.spec: E: specfile-error error: %changelog entries must start with * libtexpdf.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag sile.src: E: no-changelogname-tag sile.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag sile-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag sile-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag sile.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary SILE sile.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary SILE sile.spec:128: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease libtexpdf.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0 libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0 libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/agl.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/bmpimage.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cff.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cff_dict.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cff_limits.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cff_stdstr.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cff_types.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cid.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cid_basefont.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cid_p.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cidtype0.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cidtype2.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cmap.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cmap_p.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cmap_read.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cmap_write.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/cs_type2.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/dpxcrypt.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/dpxfile.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/dpxutil.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/epdf.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/error.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/fontmap.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/jp2image.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/jpegimage.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/mem.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/mfileio.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/numbers.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/otl_conf.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/otl_opt.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfcolor.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfdev.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfdoc.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfdraw.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfencoding.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfencrypt.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdffont.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdflimits.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfnames.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfobj.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfparse.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfresource.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pdfximage.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pkfont.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pngimage.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pst.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/pst_obj.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/sfnt.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/subfont.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/tfm.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/truetype.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/tt_aux.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/tt_cmap.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/tt_glyf.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/tt_gsub.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/tt_post.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/tt_table.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/type0.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/type1.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/type1c.h libtexpdf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libtexpdf/unicode.h sile.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sile/i18n/sk.ftl /usr/share/sile/i18n/cs.ftl sile.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sile/i18n/el.ftl /usr/share/sile/i18n/el-monoton.ftl:/usr/share/sile/i18n/el-polyton.ftl sile.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sile/i18n/no.ftl /usr/share/sile/i18n/nb.ftl sile.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency lua-zlib 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 75 errors, 9 warnings, 75 badness; has taken 1.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sile-debuginfo-0.14.17-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphpm1618h')] checks: 31, packages: 1 sile-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libtexpdf". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libtexpdf-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sile-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sile". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sile-debuginfo". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 5 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- sile: /usr/lib64/sile/fontmetrics.so sile: /usr/lib64/sile/justenoughfontconfig.so sile: /usr/lib64/sile/justenoughharfbuzz.so sile: /usr/lib64/sile/justenoughicu.so sile: /usr/lib64/sile/justenoughlibtexpdf.so sile: /usr/lib64/sile/svg.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sile-typesetter/sile/releases/download/v0.14.17/sile-0.14.17.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f89bedecedabb5168250ad9dd80c09ed289c8e88c3d0d756d2d1d92ee065e04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f89bedecedabb5168250ad9dd80c09ed289c8e88c3d0d756d2d1d92ee065e04 Requires -------- sile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libharfbuzz-subset.so.0()(64bit) libharfbuzz.so.0()(64bit) libicudata.so.74()(64bit) libicui18n.so.74()(64bit) libicuio.so.74()(64bit) libicuuc.so.74()(64bit) liblua-5.4.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtexpdf(x86-64) libtexpdf.so.0()(64bit) lua-cassowary lua-cldr lua-cliargs lua-cosmo lua-expat lua-filesystem lua-fluent lua-linenoise lua-loadkit lua-lpeg lua-luarepl lua-luautf8 lua-penlight lua-sec lua-socket lua-vstruct lua-zlib rtld(GNU_HASH) libtexpdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libtexpdf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtexpdf(x86-64) libtexpdf.so.0()(64bit) sile-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sile-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sile: bundled(lua-lunamark) sile sile(x86-64) libtexpdf: libtexpdf libtexpdf(x86-64) libtexpdf.so.0()(64bit) libtexpdf-devel: libtexpdf-devel libtexpdf-devel(x86-64) sile-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) sile-debuginfo sile-debuginfo(x86-64) sile-debugsource: sile-debugsource sile-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name sile --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, fonts, R, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH ---- Reviewer comments: * Package license file missing in libtexpf * License identifier for libtexpdf should be GPL-2.0-only * Latest upstream version of SILE is v0.15.5, but packaging the latest non-Rust based version first makes sense, and all the Lua dependencies are already provided. Bumping to the Rust based wrapper after the Lua based package works makes perfect sense in this case (as most of the Lua dependencies will be required the same way). * Does an exception need to be discussed for the bundled lua-lunamark (upstream bundled version is actually a fork)?
Updated the SPEC based on your comments, kept version at 0.14.17. New SRPM URL: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/sile-0.14.17-1.fc40.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7983006 Changes: * Include package license file for libtexpf and libtexpf-devel * Updated license tag to GPL-2.0-only * Removed the version restriction of harfbuzz that was 6 or higher since Fedora 39 is ships with harfbuzz version 8 Bundled libraries do no longer need a FPC exception as long as the package adheres to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
Created attachment 2045439 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7000856 to 7983053
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7983053 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149698-sile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07983053-sile/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sile
FEDORA-2024-2f7519eae3 (sile-0.14.17-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2f7519eae3
FEDORA-2024-3189f91942 (sile-0.14.17-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3189f91942
FEDORA-2024-ae247c0c04 (sile-0.14.17-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ae247c0c04
Re this in the automated testing tab: > A forbidden code point, 0x202B, was found in the sile-0.14.17/outputters/text.lua source file on line 60 at column 23. This source file is used by sile.spec. This being an error in this project is patently ridiculous, especially it being marked as a security issue. If a typesetting engine cannot be allowed to output RIGHT_TO_LEFT and similar embedding marks following the Unicode standard for such code points and using in their intended fashion then I guess you can just tell Fedora users to bust out their Linotype machines and go back to hot metal type.
(In reply to Caleb Maclennan from comment #37) > Re this in the automated testing tab: > > > A forbidden code point, 0x202B, was found in the sile-0.14.17/outputters/text.lua source file on line 60 at column 23. This source file is used by sile.spec. > > This being an error in this project is patently ridiculous, especially it > being marked as a security issue. If a typesetting engine cannot be allowed > to output RIGHT_TO_LEFT and similar embedding marks following the Unicode > standard for such code points and using in their intended fashion then I > guess you can just tell Fedora users to bust out their Linotype machines and > go back to hot metal type. Yes, not sure how to turn it off or mark the files as safe
If the lint can't just be ignored here is a patch you can use to work around the problem (patch is for v0.14.17): https://github.com/sile-typesetter/sile/commit/5264f54f54cd94ab17d7917d03d7c50fbb4d2f1d.patch I'll consider applying that to the current HEAD too because it looks like the GitHub interface flips out too (pun intended).
I do not think the checks are stopping the package to enter into stable
FEDORA-2024-ae247c0c04 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-ae247c0c04 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ae247c0c04 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-3189f91942 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-3189f91942 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3189f91942 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-2f7519eae3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-2f7519eae3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2f7519eae3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-3189f91942 (sile-0.14.17-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-ae247c0c04 (sile-0.14.17-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-2f7519eae3 (sile-0.14.17-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.