Spec URL: http://www.macmahon.me.uk/linux/fedora/SPECS/gimp-resynthesizer.spec SRPM URL: http://www.macmahon.me.uk/linux/fedora/SRPMS/gimp-resynthesizer-0.15-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Resynthesizer is a Gimp plug-in for texture synthesis. Given a sample of a texture, it can create more of that texture. This has uses including: - Creating more of a texture (including creation of tileable textures) - Removing objects from images (by extending the surrounding texture) - Creating themed images (by transferring a texture from one image to another) The original home page is at: http://logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer This is my first Fedora package, so I'm looking for a sponsor.
Well, # Top comment is unnecessary, summary tag is enough. # license tag need to be fix, as the license policy has been changed, you need to set explicitly the version of the licensed package now. So, set it to GPLv2 as your package is. # Yous should use the recommanded default buildroot which is: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) # RPM variable style VS RPM macros style: You should use one of them, not mixe them in spec. Also there are duplicate command is the spec, should be fix. # Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS # Failed to build on mock F-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...] g++ `gimptool --cflags` -O3 -Wall -fno-common -ffast-math -frename-registers -fomit-frame-pointer -o resynth resynth.cc `gimptool --libs` -lm resynth.cc:83: error: template with C linkage resynth.cc:979: error: expected `}' at end of input make: *** [resynth] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.33961 (%build) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Thanks for the comments; taking them in order: - The pointless comment's gone, - License field set to GPLv2+ (the COPYING file is indeed GPLv2, but the header on the actual code specifies the 'or any later version' text), - According to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825 the mktemp based build root I've used is now the most preferred option - I'm happy to change it if I'm misinterpreting the guidelines, - RPM variable/macro style; that was a leftover from testing something, not sure how it got left in. It's all macro style now, that also removes the duplicate. - CFLAGS are now set to %{optflags}, this overrides the defaults in the Makefile, - I can't reliably reproduce the build errors; I've had different errors (and some successful builds) at different times today with identical input SRPMS, including most recently: > Error: Missing Dependency: zlib = 1.2.3-13.fc8 is needed by package zlib-devel > Error performing yum command: /usr/sbin/mock-helper yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64/root install 'gimp-devel' 'gimp' So it looks like there may be some churn occurring in the dependencies at the moment. It does build cleanly for F7, and has just built for -devel. Revised packages (built with mock for fedora-devel) containing the fixes so far are here: SPEC (same url): http://www.macmahon.me.uk/linux/fedora/SPECS/gimp-resynthesizer.spec SRPM: http://www.macmahon.me.uk/linux/fedora/SRPMS/gimp-resynthesizer-0.15-2.fc8.src.rpm
okay, All issues above has been fixed. However, Mock still failed at the same point (On F-devel_i386), not tested on x86_64 Just tested on F-7_i386 and built successfully. can you make a try on mock F-devel_i386 # Also removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR (i'll sponsor you)
ping !
Pong :-) Sorry - I've not disappeared, just been a bit short of time. The current state of play is that the package builds cleanly on F-7-i386 and F-7-x86_64, but fails (reliably now; I'm guessing all the mirrors have caught up with whatever change is tripping the problem) on F-devel-i386 and F-devel-x86_64. So far I don't know why, but I'm digging into it. More news as I have it...
(In reply to comment #5) > Pong :-) Sorry - I've not disappeared, just been a bit short of time. > > The current state of play is that the package builds cleanly on F-7-i386 and > F-7-x86_64, but fails (reliably now; I'm guessing all the mirrors have caught > up with whatever change is tripping the problem) on F-devel-i386 and > F-devel-x86_64. So far I don't know why, but I'm digging into it. This may be connected to Rawhide having the gimp 2.4.0 release candidate and not 2.2.x. One thing though (and sorry for chiming in so late, I've been on vacation): I'd like the package name changed to e.g. "gimp-plugin-resynthesizer" to reflect that it's a plugin and not e.g. a brush, pattern or theme. This hasn't been discussed anywhere else yet and yours is the first package of a gimp plugin in Fedora proper, but this seems to be a sensible thing to do for me.
OK; some signs of progress, but not quite a solution (yet): - The name change is clearly your call, but is there any reason to single out plugins as a special case of add on, or would you want to have a full set of e.g: gimp-plugin-XXXX gimp-brush-XXXX gimp-pattern-XXXX I'm not sure there's a way to keep it consistent without having a proliferation of special cases in the naming guidelines. - The build failure: it does indeed appear to be a 2.4 change, and while I haven't 100% confirmed, it looks to be the same as this Debian bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=439469 so it looks like it might be a problem in Gimp itself. I'm going to test the Debian patch and if I then get a successful build of resynthesizer I'll file the appropriate bug on the Gimp.
(In reply to comment #7) > OK; some signs of progress, but not quite a solution (yet): > - The name change is clearly your call, but is there any reason to single out > plugins as a special case of add on, or would you want to have a full set of > e.g: > gimp-plugin-XXXX > gimp-brush-XXXX > gimp-pattern-XXXX > I'm not sure there's a way to keep it consistent without having a > proliferation of special cases in the naming guidelines. I'd like to have that. As yours is the first package extending gimp in the repository, your sort of the guinea pig for it ;-). Shall we discuss this on fedora-devel-list? > - The build failure: it does indeed appear to be a 2.4 change, and while I > haven't 100% confirmed, it looks to be the same as this Debian bug > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=439469 so it looks like it > might be a problem in Gimp itself. I'm going to test the Debian patch and > if I then get a successful build of resynthesizer I'll file the appropriate > bug on the Gimp. Gimp should have a second RC shortly, we should try with that once it arrives. If it takes too long, I'll shove in a post RC1 SVN snapshot.
(In reply to comment #8) > Gimp should have a second RC shortly, we should try with that once it arrives. > If it takes too long, I'll shove in a post RC1 SVN snapshot. Gimp 2.4.0 rc2 (gimp-2.4.0-0.rc2.1.fc8) seems good to this package. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147134
ok, its built successfully on devel_%{arch} now (In reply to comment #7) > OK; some signs of progress, but not quite a solution (yet): > - The name change is clearly your call, but is there any reason to single out > plugins as a special case of add on, or would you want to have a full set of > e.g: > gimp-plugin-XXXX > gimp-brush-XXXX > gimp-pattern-XXXX gimp-plugin-XXXX should be more apropirate. > I'm not sure there's a way to keep it consistent without having a > proliferation of special cases in the naming guidelines. i'm not really sure that there's something to be worried about that.
So; I've had a look at the rc2 source and it does indeed contain the relevent fix, and resynthesizer does build happily against it. I'm just in the process of double checking that the resultant package actually functions correctly, but it's looking good. As for the naming; I've chipped in my thoughts on fedora-devel; I'll re-do a package with a new name (of necessary) once there's a conclusion.
I've tested the package with Gimp 2.4rc2 on rawhide/F8test and it builds and functions correctly. Since we seem to be shelving the the rename until/unless it becomes necessary I think that the second version of the package will do as the final version, so unless anyone's got any objection it just remains to get sponsored and get it into the CVS. Should I submit a Fedora account request now?
(In reply to comment #12) > I've tested the package with Gimp 2.4rc2 on rawhide/F8test and it builds and > functions correctly. Since we seem to be shelving the the rename until/unless > it becomes necessary I think that the second version of the package will do as > the final version, so unless anyone's got any objection it just remains to get > sponsored and get it into the CVS. > > Should I submit a Fedora account request now? Seems good to me. Xavier?
Anynews abbout the naming of gimp plugin from development-list@ ? (sorry not followed all thread on the list)
Well we probably need to use the current plugins rules for this, and the same for gimp-gap which I'm working on (for third part repo )... Then it would be easiers to leave the upstream name as it is... About this review, this seems good to me also... @Nils Maybe ufraw-gimp need to have a vitural provides: gimp-ufraw, same for cinepaint-ufraw ;) @Xavier thx for taking this review, I couldn't as Ewan wasn't already sponsored.. @Ewan do you have other review to submit ?
Naming: It was a very short thread on fedora-devel, there wasn't a lot of interest at this point. The end result was that we'd leave the naming scheme as-is for now, and consider change it in future if it ever becomes necessary to use a classified system. @Nicolas - Another review? If you mean a review I've done of another package the only one where I've really contributed much (so far) was the flpsed one (bug #252125); if you mean have I another package to be reviewed, then not yet, but I've part way through packaging gpscorrelate[1], but it needs a few rough edges filing off. [1] http://freefoote.dview.net/linux_gpscorr.html
Just confirming Ewan's statement, we'll stay with "gimp-<foo>" where the package is only an extension of GIMP. Packages that have other functionality usable without GIMP can name their plugin subpackages "<foo>-gimp". If we at some point see that this results in a naming chaos, we'll revisit this issue. Xavier, my question was rather if Ewan is good to go forward with this package, i.e. if it reviews successfully.
Ok, It's good to me to (aggred with Nicolas). This package can be approved. About sponsorship: Ewan, request fedorabugs groups on your FAS to be able to review package (if not done yet). then, Please follow the procedure of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors .
What is the status of this bug?
The current state of play is that my Fedora account needs approval/sponsorship for the cvsextras and fedorabugs groups; once that's done I should be able to finish up here. I believe I've done the necessary things at my end.
(In reply to comment #20) > The current state of play is that my Fedora account needs approval/sponsorship > for the cvsextras and fedorabugs groups; once that's done I should be able to > finish up here. I believe I've done the necessary things at my end. Oh, I found your FAS in cvsextras request and indeed you've requested it on Oct 1st! Well, then to make this review proceed I will sponsor you. Please proceed.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gimp-resynthesizer Short Description: Gimp plugin for texture synthesis Owners: ewan Branches: F-7 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Thanks everyone, it's built and in the repository now.