Bug 247406 - Review Request: libcompizconfig - configuration backend for compiz >= 0.5.1
Review Request: libcompizconfig - configuration backend for compiz >= 0.5.1
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Mamoru TASAKA
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 247405 247409
Blocks: 247408
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-07-09 00:14 EDT by Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail
Modified: 2011-04-03 23:50 EDT (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-10-17 13:15:09 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mtasaka: fedora‑review+
tibbs: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Patch for libX11.so linkage fix (707 bytes, patch)
2007-10-12 02:51 EDT, Mamoru TASAKA
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-07-09 00:14:42 EDT
Spec URL: http://devel.foss.org.my/~kagesenshi/repo/private/testing/SPEC/libcompizconfig.spec
SRPM URL: http://devel.foss.org.my/~kagesenshi/repo/private/testing/libcompizconfig/libcompizconfig-0.0.1-0.5.20070708git.fc7.src.rpm
The Compiz Project brings 3D desktop visual effects that improve
usability of the X Window System and provide increased productivity
through plugins and themes contributed by the community giving a
rich desktop experience.

This package contains the library for plugins to configure compiz settings.

BuildReq: compiz-bcop
Comment 1 Xavier Lamien 2007-07-09 17:08:14 EDT
Added block dependency
Comment 2 Stewart Adam 2007-07-09 18:34:36 EDT
- A trival rpmlint warning:
W: libcompizconfig summary-not-capitalized libcompizconfig

- Rebuilding libcompizconfig-0.0.1-0.5.20070708git.fc7.src.rpm returns:
error: Failed build dependencies:
        compiz-devel >= 0.5.1 is needed by

I can't continue to review this until compiz >= 0.5.1 had been reviewed.
Comment 3 Michel Alexandre Salim 2007-10-05 10:02:45 EDT
The development tree now has compiz 0.5.2. Stewart, do you still want to do the 
review? Otherwise, I can take it.
Comment 4 Stewart Adam 2007-10-05 18:03:26 EDT
If you don't mind I'll take it :)

I got a 404 error with the SRPM above, I'll use this instead:
Let me know if I should be using another SRPM.

+ source files match upstream
+ package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
- license field matches the actual license.
"GPL" is no longer a vlid license. Please specify the version - See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing for more info.
+ license is open source-compatible, GPL License text included in package.
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ compiler flags are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installs properly
+ debuginfo package looks complete.
+ rpmlint is silent.
It isn't "silent", but the errors can be ignored.
+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
- owns the directories it creates.
It should own %{_datadir}/compizconfig and %{_libdir}/compizconfig
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
+ headers, pkgconfig files are in -devel package
+ no .la files
Comment 5 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-05 21:50:00 EDT
Thanks for resuming this review

I have changed the license tag and added created directories into %files

SPEC: http://izhar.fedorapeople.org/libcompizconfig/libcompizconfig.spec

btw .. I forgot to mention that i need a sponsor as this is my first package in
Fedora repository ..
Comment 6 Stewart Adam 2007-10-06 00:17:05 EDT
Well the package itself is ready to be imported, but I can't to sponsor you -
I've unassigned the bug from myself and hopefully someone who can sponsor you
will pick it up soon.
Comment 7 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-06 13:16:34 EDT
For 0.5.2-0.3:

* zero-length document
  - Please explain why you need zero-length documents
E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libcompizconfig-0.5.2/README
E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libcompizconfig-0.5.2/ChangeLog

* undefined non-weak symbols
W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XStringToKeysym
W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XKeysymToString
  - As this srpm provides -devel subpackage, these undefined non-weak
    symbols cannot be allowed because this causes linkage failure.

* Timestamp
  - To keep timestamps on xml and header files, I recommend
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"
    This method usually works on recent Makefiles.
Comment 8 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-07 03:41:25 EDT
* undefined non-weak symbols
W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XStringToKeysym
W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XKeysymToString
  - As this srpm provides -devel subpackage, these undefined non-weak
    symbols cannot be allowed because this causes linkage failure.


may i know how to resolve this?? 
Comment 9 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-07 03:55:00 EDT
(In reply to comment #8)
> ////
> * undefined non-weak symbols
> -------------------------------------------------------
> W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XStringToKeysym
> W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XKeysymToString
> -------------------------------------------------------
>   - As this srpm provides -devel subpackage, these undefined non-weak
>     symbols cannot be allowed because this causes linkage failure.
> ////
> may i know how to resolve this?? 
"nm -D" shows that both symbols are provides by libX11.so, so
linking against libX11.so should fix this.

Comment 10 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-07 03:55:56 EDT
(In reply to comment #9)

> "nm -D" shows that both symbols are provides by libX11.so, so
> linking against libX11.so should fix this.

Comment 11 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-11 02:56:57 EDT
rawhide compiz is now upgrade to 0.6.0
Comment 12 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-11 23:52:33 EDT
I have updated the package


- added builddep libX11-devel
Comment 13 Yijun Yuan 2007-10-12 01:47:52 EDT
why compiz-bcop is needed to build this? Is compiz-bcop a devel package?
Comment 14 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-12 01:56:21 EDT
yup .. compiz-bcop is needed to build compiz plugins .. and libcompizconfig is a
compiz plugin and a configuration backend

Comment 15 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-12 02:51:13 EDT
Created attachment 225181 [details]
Patch for libX11.so linkage fix

For 0.6.0-1.5615ca

* Undefined non-weak symbols
  - Still these symbols exist.
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -q libcompizconfig
[root@localhost ~]# rpmlint libcompizconfig
libcompizconfig.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XStringToKeysym
libcompizconfig.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 XKeysymToString
[root@localhost ~]# ldd -r /usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0 >/dev/null
undefined symbol: XStringToKeysym	(/usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0)
undefined symbol: XKeysymToString	(/usr/lib/libcompizconfig.so.0.0.0)
    Only installing libX11-devel will not solve this issue.
    You have to patch against Makefile.in so that libcompizconfig.so
    is linked against libX11.so.

* Source
  - The tarball in your srpm was not found on the URL written
    as source0.
  * Please refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ,
    section "Using Revision Control"
  * Also, if this tarball is a "pre-release", please also check
    the section "Non-Numeric Version in Release" of
Comment 17 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-16 11:42:07 EDT
For 0.6.0-0.2.20071011git:

* License
  - After I rechecked the whole files in tarball, I noticed
    that libini.so is licensed under GPLv2+.
    Also, "COPYING" file in libcompizconfig rpm is GPL.

    * Change License tag to "LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+".
    * Add a comment in the spec file like:
Group:          System Environment/Libraries
# backends/libini.so is GPLv2+, other parts are LGPLv2+
License:        LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+
    * Add "LICENSE.gpl" "LICENSE.lgpl" to %doc

When you have done the fixes above, I guess I can approve
this package.
Comment 18 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-16 12:51:29 EDT
ok .. i've added the changes from comment 17

Comment 19 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-16 13:02:22 EDT

    This package (libcompizconfig) is APPROVED by me

Please follow the procedure according to:
from "Get a Fedora Account".
At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies
that you need a sponsor (at the stage, please also write on
this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship)
Then I will sponsor you.

If you want to import this package into Fedora 7, you also have
to look at
(after once you rebuilt this package on Fedora rebuilding system).

If you have questions, please ask me.
Comment 20 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-16 22:20:53 EDT
I have added myself into cvsextras and fedorabugs group..
Comment 21 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-17 03:27:54 EDT
Now I should be sponsoring you. Please proceed.
Comment 22 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-17 04:01:29 EDT
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: libcompizconfig
Short Description: Configuration backend for compiz
Owners: izhar
Branches: F-7
InitialCC: izhar
Cvsextras Commits: yes
Comment 23 Kevin Fenzi 2007-10-17 12:20:02 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 24 Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail 2007-10-17 12:38:41 EDT
thanks kevin 

btw, i just noticed compiz-bcop is only available @ devel branch , so i guess
the F-7 branch is not needed ( sorry~ ).. am i just required to ignore it? .. or
are there some procedure i need to follow to cleanup that?
Comment 25 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-10-17 12:50:16 EDT
You can just ignore F-7 branch then.
Comment 26 leigh scott 2011-04-01 11:55:26 EDT
Hi Mohd Izhar,

Is it ok for me to request a epel6 branch?



Comment 27 leigh scott 2011-04-01 13:42:33 EDT
Package Change Request
Package Name: libcompizconfig
New Branches: el6
Owners: leigh123linux
Comment 28 Jason Tibbitts 2011-04-03 23:50:08 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.