Spec URL: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SPECS/xosview.spec SRPM URL: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SRPMS/xosview-1.8.3-5.fc8.src.rpm Description: The xosview utility displays a set of bar graphs which show the current system state, including memory usage, CPU usage, system load, etc. Xosview runs under the X Window System. This is my first package, and I need a sponsor. Please note that I currently host my own repository (http://optics.csufresno.edu/~kriehn/fedora/repository.html) and am looking at the viability of moving the Enlightenment packages (just under 100 of them) over to Fedora Extras at some point in the future. As such, I am starting with a package outside of Enlightenment (xosview) that I feel should be included in Fedora Extras anyway.
The actual repository itself is located at: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/
Is there a reason you closed this bug?
Bah, no. I don't know how that happened -- must have been an errant mouse click. I've re-opened it.
Nice application :) Well for 1.8.2-5: * License - The license tag "GPL" is not valid for Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing ! Note When the codes under GPL and the codes under "BSD" are used for a component: - If "BSD" means 3 clause (i.e. without advertising clause), the whole license of the component becomes just "GPL" (in this case the license tag is GPLv2+, for example) as GPL is more strict than BSD - If "BSD" means 4 clause (i.e. with advertising clause), this is incompatible with GPL (at any version). So please check that no codes shipped under "BSD with advertising" license are used for this package. * SourceURL - For sourceforge software, please refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * %configure ----------------------------------------------------------------- CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" \ %configure --disable-linux-memstat --x-libraries=/usr/lib --x-includes=/usr/include --prefix=/usr ----------------------------------------------------------------- - Please check if CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is really needed. - --prefix=/usr is not needed You can check what %configure actually does by $ rpm --eval %configure Also: - Check if --x-libraries=/usr/lib --x-includes=/usr/include is really needed * These are usually detected automatically * Also --x-libraries=/usr/lib is actually wrong for 64bit architecture * Fedora specific compilation flags ----------------------------------------------------------------- 129 + make -j4 all 130 cd ./linux && make 131 make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/xosview-1.8.3/linux' 132 g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune =generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size =4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wall -O4 -I/usr/include -DXOSVIEW_VERSION=\"1.8.3\" -I/builddir/build/ BUILD/xosview-1.8.3 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/xosview-1.8.3/linux -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"\" -DPAC KAGE_STRING=\"\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DHAVE_BOOL=1 -DLONG_LONG=long\ long -DHAVE_SNPRINTF=1 -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_STAT_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_MEMORY_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_INTTYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_STDINT_H=1 -DHA VE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_IOSTREAM=1 -DHAVE_FSTREAM=1 -DHAVE_XPM=1 -DGNULIBC=1 -DUSESYSCALLS=1 -DHAVE_USLEEP=1 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FO RTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W all -O4 -I/usr/include -DXOSVIEW_VERSION=\"1.8.3\" -I/builddir/build/BUILD/xosview-1.8.3 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/xosview-1.8.3/linux -D PACKAGE_NAME=\"\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"\" -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DHAVE_BOOL=1 -DLONG_LON G=long\ long -DHAVE_SNPRINTF=1 -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_STAT_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_MEM ORY_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_INTTYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_STDINT_H=1 -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_IOSTREAM=1 -DHAVE_FSTREAM=1 -DHAVE_XPM=1 -DGN ULIBC=1 -DUSESYSCALLS=1 -DHAVE_USLEEP=1 -I.. -c cpumeter.cc -o cpumeter.o ----------------------------------------------------------------- - Here Fedora uses optimization level "-O2" by default, which is replaced by the latter level "-O4" and Fedora does not allow this. * Macros - Please use macros when possible. * For example, /usr -> %{_prefix} %_prefix/bin -> %_bindir %_prefix/share/man -> %_mandir * Desktop file - When installing desktop files, desktop-file-install must be called (please check "desktop-file-install usage" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) - The Categories "Application" "X-Red-Hat-Base" are deprecated and should be removed. * rpmlint issue - You can check some gereric packaging issues by using rpmlint (in rpmlint rpm) ------------------------------------------------------------- xosview.src:252: W: macro-in-%changelog clean xosview.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot An X Window System utility for monitoring system resources. ------------------------------------------------------------- * When using macros in %changelog, please use %% (for example %%clean) to avoid macros from being expanded * Summary should not be ended with dot.
ping?
Sorry -- just got off of spring break and have been catching up on all my grading. If me a week and I'll make adjustments to this. Thanks for feedback!
*** Bug 440473 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hi Dr. Kriehn, I did not known you want to push packages from http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/ to Fedora, however that's great. I did a some work on the xosview package in your repo and submitted for review ( bug 440473). The spec file is here: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/xosview/xosview.spec Please have a look, there are some improvements there (imho). I also did some initial work on e17 packages. Do you want to maintain those in Fedora too?
Ok, let's work with this new spec file that you've just posted here -- from the above comments, what is still applicable to the new spec file? Yes, I am looking at submitting Enlightenment packages to Fedora/RPMFusion. However, I would like to do it in a structured manner. If you'd like to help, send me an e-mail, and we can work on getting this done together. Thanks, Greg
(In reply to comment #9) > Ok, let's work with this new spec file that you've just posted here -- > from the above comments, what is still applicable to the new spec file? Let's see: * License - Not looked into this. * SourceURL - Fixed * %configure - Fixed * Fedora specific compilation flags - Here Fedora uses optimization level "-O2" by default, which is replaced by the latter level "-O4" and Fedora does not allow this. - Fixed (I believe) * Macros - Fixed * Desktop file - Fixed (partly?) * rpmlint issue - rpmlint clean now spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/xosview/xosview.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/xosview/xosview-1.8.3-6.fc8.src.rpm
Sorry for delay.... For 1.8.3-6 * About License tag - (BSD) license used in this tarball is what we call "BSD with advertising", which is _incompatible_ with (any version of) GPL and using "BSD with advertising"-only licensed codes cannot used for this package. Fortunately the only problematic codes are bsd/swapinternal.{h,cc} and they are not used for xosview. So: - Please change the license tag to "GPL+" (GPL at any version) - Don't add COPYING.BSD to %doc. * Using CVS - If you want to use CVS: * Please follow the section "Using Revision Control" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * and also follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages * Desktop file Category - The Category "Application" in desktop files are now deprecated and should be removed. * Macros - Please replace: %_prefix/bin -> %_bindir %_prefix/share/man -> %_mandir Well, as this is NEEDSPONSOR ticket: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
> * Using CVS > - If you want to use CVS: > * Please follow the section "Using Revision Control" of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Fixed in new package: spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/xosview/xosview.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/xosview/xosview-1.8.3-7.fc8.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #12) > > * Using CVS > > - If you want to use CVS: > > * Please follow the section "Using Revision Control" of > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL > > Fixed in new package: No, what I wanted to say here is that - You should create tarball from CVS repo by using tar instead of creating a huge diff between released tarball and CVS head. - Also you should follow "Snapshot packages" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Also some other issues remain ( I will wait Gregory )
> No, what I wanted to say here is that > - You should create tarball from CVS repo by using tar instead of > creating a huge diff between released tarball and CVS head. Ok, that's much simpler :-) I will leave that to Gregory as there should enough information in the spec file to create the cvs tarball.
All right. Please see the following updated SPEC file and SRC rpm: Spec: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SPECS/xosview.spec SRPM: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SRPMS/xosview-1.8.3.20080425cvs-8.fc8.src.rpm The following things have been fixed: - License Issue & COPYING.BSD file (see comments) - Pulling directly source - Removed corresponding cvs patch (diff) file - Fixed Post-Release Naming Guidelines - Fixed Categories section in Desktop file I believe... ...everything is fixed. rpmlint is silent. Thanks for your patience in this! I will probably start the process of uploading new spec files for other applications and tighten up the spec files based upon the feedback here. Greg
For 1.8.3.cvsXXX-8: * Versioning - Well actually 1.8.3-cvsXXXX-8 is against Fedora naming guidelines. Please check the subsection "Snapshot packages" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines The recommended EVR is 1.8.3-X.YYYYYYYcvs%{?dist} * %configure - %configure sets CXXFLAGS. You can check what %configure does by $ rpm --eval %configure . So for this package the following is enough. -------------------------------------------------- %build ./autogen.sh %configure %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} all ..... -------------------------------------------------- Then as this is NEEDSPONSOR ticket, as I said in my comment 11 I wait for your another review request submission or your pre-review of other review request.
All right, let's try this ...again... I thought I had it right the last time -- I guess I misread the naming guidelines. SPEC: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SPECS/xosview.spec SRPM: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SRPMS/xosview-1.8.3-9.20080519cvs.fc8.src.rpm And yes, I am aware that I need to spend time looking at other people's submissions. Now that classes are over, I'll have some time to do that. Expect comments from me on other packages within the week. What is the procedure for pushing this to Fedora 9 now that it has come out? Thanks, Greg
Currently I am at a lost why your latest srpm fails to build on dist-f10 ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=619950 On dist-f9-updates-candidate ppc64 it is okay http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=620272 ???
Well, for 1.8.3-9: * Source1 - Would you write in the spec file what %SOURCE1 come from? (when possible, write a full URL) * ppc64 build failure - Well, actually this was because * On F-10 redhat-rpm-config (9.0.3-1) %configure does not replace config.{sub,status} automatically (On F-9 redhat-rpm-config 9.0.2-1) it does replace * The original config/config.{sub,status} does not work for ppc64 So something like: ------------------------------------------------------------- %build ./autogen.sh # From redhat-rpm-config 9.0.3-1 (F-10) config.{guess,sub} are # not overwritten automatically. The original config.{guess,sub} # do not work on ppc64 # # The following /usr/lib cannot be %%_libdir !! cp -p /usr/lib/rpm/config.{guess,sub} config/ %configure %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} all -------------------------------------------------------------- is needed * %setup not quiet - %setup must be quiet (use %setup -q -n XXXXXX) * Macros - Again please fix macros correctly %{_prefix}/bin/ -> %{_bindir} %{_prefix}/share/man -> %{_mandir} * %doc - Not all README* is needed. README and README.linux is enough.
* Source1 URL added * fixed ppc64 config error * added -q to %setup * fixed macros * fixed README rpmlint is silent SPEC: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SPECS/xosview.spec SRPM: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SRPMS/xosview-1.8.3-10.20080520cvs.fc8.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #21) > * Source1 URL added Okay, then use URL directly, such as ------------------------------------------------------------------- Source1: http://roxos.sunsite.dk/dev-contrib/guido/XOsview.png ...... %{__install} -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/%{name}.png ...... ------------------------------------------------------------------- And I will wait for your another review request or pre-review. (In reply to comment #18) > What is the procedure for pushing this to Fedora 9 now that it has come out? I will note this once this package is approved.
* Source1 + install command fixed. SPEC: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SPECS/xosview.spec SRPM: http://optics.csufresno.edu/fedora/extras/8/SRPMS/xosview-1.8.3-11.20080520cvs.fc8.src.rpm Thanks for your patience!
Did you submit another review request or do a pre-review of other person's review request?
ping again?
I will close this bug as NOTABUG if no response is received from the reporter within ONE WEEK.
I am sorry for dropping off the planet on this -- some very large health issues came up with a member in my family. I'll will try to get you feedback with this in the next couple of days.
Closing. If someone wants to import this package into Fedora, please file another review request and mark this bug as a duplicate of the new one. Thanks.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 461491 ***