Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/bal.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/babl-0.0.15-0.1.20071011svn.fc8.src.rpm Description: Babl is a dynamic, any to any, pixel format conversion library. It provides conversions between the myriad of buffer types images can be stored in. Babl doesn't only help with existing pixel formats, but also facilitates creation of new and uncommon ones. NOTE: This software, babl and gegl (that I'll also be submitting for review) are both currently alpha quality software under development. However, they are both needed to build/run the latest version of another package I maintain, gnomes-scan. The last version of gnome-scan without these dependencies doesn't build successfully on current rawhide.
For the url, you should use, such that it is easier to check your source: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-615f6271efb394ab340a93a6cf030f2d08cf0d49 and not use a inexistent source url. Do you intend to add this package to another branch than devel? I propose the following to ship the html docs: rm -rf __package_docs mkdir -p __package_docs cp -pr docs __package_docs mv __package_docs/docs __package_docs/html rm -rf __package_docs/html/tools __package_docs/html/.svn __package_docs/html/graphics/.svn rm __package_docs/html/Makefile* __package_docs/html/graphics/Makefile* and add %doc __package_docs/html You could use make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install INSTALL='install -p' to keep timestamps Suggestion: use rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la to be noticed when .la files aren't shipped anymore.
(In reply to comment #1) > For the url, you should use, such that it is easier to check > your source: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-615f6271efb394ab340a93a6cf030f2d08cf0d49 > > and not use a inexistent source url. > Fixed > Do you intend to add this package to another branch > than devel? > Maybe F-7. I already got a request to update gnome-scan there to the latest. > I propose the following to ship the html docs: > I did this in a slightly different way. Thanks. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/bal.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/babl-0.0.15-0.2.20071011svn.fc8.src.rpm
There is a dot missing at the end of the devel %description. Also the timestamps are still not kept. As above, I propose: make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install INSTALL='install -p' The changelog entry is not very clear in my opinion: - Remove the use of inexistent source (from package reviews) I would suggest something along: - clarify how the source may be generated and don't mention the fact that the sources were inexistent, since the source were not really inexistent the url was. It is only a suggestion and not a big deal. As for shipping babl svn snapshot in F-7 I think that it should be avoided, unless there are severe regression/bugs or there are wonderful new functionalities.
(In reply to comment #3) > There is a dot missing at the end of the devel %description. > Will add it. > Also the timestamps are still not kept. As above, I propose: > make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install INSTALL='install -p' > I don't see why its necessary, the packaging guildeline say to do it, when the copy command is used. There's no mention of doing it for make install. > The changelog entry is not very clear in my opinion: > - Remove the use of inexistent source (from package reviews) A typo, should have been 'inexistent source url'. Will fix. > > As for shipping babl svn snapshot in F-7 I think that it > should be avoided, unless there are severe regression/bugs or > there are wonderful new functionalities. Actually, there are 'wonderful new functionalities' in latest gnome-scan (at least according to the author), and it depends the svn version of babl and gegl.
(In reply to comment #4) > > Also the timestamps are still not kept. As above, I propose: > > make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install INSTALL='install -p' > > > I don't see why its necessary, the packaging guildeline say to do it, when the > copy command is used. There's no mention of doing it for make install. It is an obvious deficiency of the guidelines. It is obviously better to keep timestamps for all the files that are not generated (and sometimes it is also better to have relevant timestamps on generated files, in case of multiarch packages sharing those files). > > The changelog entry is not very clear in my opinion: > > - Remove the use of inexistent source (from package reviews) > A typo, should have been 'inexistent source url'. Will fix. Ok. > > As for shipping babl svn snapshot in F-7 I think that it > > should be avoided, unless there are severe regression/bugs or > > there are wonderful new functionalities. > Actually, there are 'wonderful new functionalities' in latest gnome-scan (at > least according to the author), and it depends the svn version of babl and gegl. Ok.
With fixes from comment #3, Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/bal.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/babl-0.0.15-0.2.20071011svn.fc8.src.rpm
There is a typo in the %changelog, as rpmlint shows: babl.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.15-0.3.svn20071011 0.0.15-0.3.20071011svn.fc8 What is exactly the use of /usr/lib/babl-0.0/CIE-Lab.so /usr/lib/babl-0.0/gegl-fixups.so /usr/lib/babl-0.0/gggl-lies.so /usr/lib/babl-0.0/gggl.so /usr/lib/babl-0.0/naive-CMYK.so They don't look like library to link against, but rather like dlopened extensions. Is it the case? In that case they should be in the main package, unless they are examples that shouldn't be shipped. And since gggl stuff seems to be GPLv2+, the version should be updated. What about adding: %check make check
(In reply to comment #7) > What is exactly the use of > /usr/lib/babl-0.0/CIE-Lab.so > /usr/lib/babl-0.0/gegl-fixups.so > /usr/lib/babl-0.0/gggl-lies.so > /usr/lib/babl-0.0/gggl.so > /usr/lib/babl-0.0/naive-CMYK.so > You're correct, they are extension. I've put them in the main package. > They don't look like library to link against, but rather like > dlopened extensions. Is it the case? In that case they should be > in the main package, unless they are examples that shouldn't be > shipped. And since gggl stuff seems to be GPLv2+, the version > should be updated. I dont understand what you mean by the last sentence. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/bal.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/babl-0.0.15-0.4.20071011svn.fc8.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #8) > > shipped. And since gggl stuff seems to be GPLv2+, the version > > should be updated. > > I dont understand what you mean by the last sentence. The gggl code, that makes /usr/lib/babl-0.0/gggl.so, for example, is covered by the GPLv2+. If the babl library dlopens gggl.so, then the whole is covered by the GPLv2+. So license should be GPLv2+. If the extension is not used in the default case, maybe the best would be to have License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ I haven't seen in the doc something clear about enabling or disabling the extensions, though.
In general %check is after %install. Just a suggestion.
(In reply to comment #8) > > And since gggl stuff seems to be GPLv2+, the version > > should be updated. > > I dont understand what you mean by the last sentence. Rereading myself, I just used version instead of license! Should have been: And since gggl stuff seems to be GPLv2+, the License should be updated.
Thanks, I've updated the spec file. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/bal.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/babl/babl-0.0.15-0.5.20071011svn.fc8.src.rpm
* rpmlint is silent * follow packaging guidelines * free software, one of the license included. * source match upstream except for some dates in .svn/entries * %files section right * library packaged rightly Please add a comment explaining what files are covered by the GPL. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: babl Short Description: A dynamic, any to any, pixel format conversion library Owners: deji Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
CVS done.
Thanks to Patrice and Jason. I'll add the comment about while file are under the GPL later in CVS.