Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem.spec SRPM URL: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem-0.12.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: BkChem is a chemical drawing tool that can be a good alternative to XDrawChem (abandoned since 2005 by the developers). The alternative Pacage needs some changes to work, like the creation of a .desktop file. This is my first package
(In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem.spec > SRPM URL: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem-0.12.2-1.fc9.src.rpm > Description: BkChem is a chemical drawing tool that can be a good alternative to XDrawChem (abandoned since 2005 by the developers). > The alternative Pacage needs some changes to work, like the creation of a .desktop file. > This is my first package The package seems to be working very well and the changes I made will be oticed to the developer.
Review is coming up shortly.
[ x=ok -=dont't apply !=please fix ?=may fix ] MUST [!] rpmlint must be run on every package a) bkchem.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10) remove tab in the Group: line b) bkchem.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/bkchem/oasa/setup.py 0644 Is this need at all? Remove in %install [x] package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [!] [GPLv2] package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license The bkchem/plugins/piddle directory seems to have files with a mix of copyrights, can you check with upstream regarding license of these files? [!] license field in the package spec file must match the actual license See over [x] includes the text of the license(s) in its own file: include in %doc [x] be written in American English [x] spec file for the package be legible [!] sources used to build the package must match the upstream source da8bceec65cf4e054a19c510633b61f4 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz fa3fc119f06ad0204c5c046b768cabd9 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz.rpm Remove bkchem.desktop and bkchem.png from tarball, you have to use pristine sources. They are added by source1 and source2, rpmbuild will take care of that. Ask if trouble. Source2 bkchem.png is already in the tarball as images/bkchem.png? [x] compile and build into binary rpms on at least one architecture http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857 [-] not successfully compile an architecture: use ExcludeArch [x] all build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [x] spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] shared library files not in any default linker paths: ldconfig [-] relocatable package: the packager must state this fact [x] package must own all directories that it creates [x] not any duplicate files in the %files listing [x] permissions on files must be set properly [x] package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} [!] consistently use macros spec in url is fixed, however not the spec in the src.rpm Bump release when doing updates 13, 19 and 22 has the same release, should be on release 3 now. [x] must contain code, or permissable content [?] large docs should go in a -doc subpackage Maybe split off the doc/ dir in a separate bkchem-doc package? [x] %doc must not affect the runtime of the application [-] header files must be in a -devel package [-] static libraries must be in a -static package [-] containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [-] library files that end in .so: go in a -devel package [-] devel pkg: require base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] no .la libtool archives [!] gui app include a %{name}.desktop file Set vendor to nothing: --vendor="" [x] must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] %install includes rm -rf %{buildroot} [x] filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 SHOULD [!] ping upstream about missing license text see above, the piddle subdir. [?] translations if description and summary sections [x] test that the package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857 [x] compile and build into binary rpms on all archs http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857 [x] package functions as described [!] those scriptlets are sane Just remove the %post/%postun scripts (sorry). [-] subpackages require the base package fully versioned dep [-] pkgconfig(.pc) in devel [-] no explicit file dep outside /etc, /bin/, /sbin, /usr/{sbin,bin}
The package is almost done now. Only a few changes in the .spec file to make some changes in the upstream tarball are needed.
Prereview: [ x=ok -=dont't apply !=please fix ?=may fix ] MUST [!] rpmlint must be run on every package SPECS/bkchem.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 11) bkchem.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/bkchem/oasa/setup.py 0644 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Fix changelog in SPEC file, you have 0.12.2-1 twice. (Why is this not picked up by rpmlint?) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !SRPM spec does not match the one on the website! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Remove the installation script setup.py from the package, it is not needed. [x] package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license - no plugin anymore [!] license field in the package spec file must match the actual license - The license is GPLv2+ not GPLv2. (lines 298-299 in gpl.txt) [x] includes the text of the license(s) in its own file: include in %doc [x] be written in American English [x] spec file for the package be legible [!] sources used to build the package must match the upstream source da8bceec65cf4e054a19c510633b61f4 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz fa3fc119f06ad0204c5c046b768cabd9 SOURCES/bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz - Still need to use original source package and use source1, source2 etc and patches for any modifications. [x] compile and build into binary rpms on at least one architecture - OK on F9 x86_64. [?] not successfully compile an architecture: use ExcludeArch - Not checked [?] all build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - Works for me, mock may be stricter. [x] spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] shared library files not in any default linker paths: ldconfig [-] relocatable package: the packager must state this fact [x] package must own all directories that it creates [x] not any duplicate files in the %files listing [x] permissions on files must be set properly [x] package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} [x] consistently use macros [x] must contain code, or permissable content [!] large docs should go in a -doc subpackage - Doc dir is almost half the size of the whole package, needs to be branched to its own package. [x] %doc must not affect the runtime of the application [-] header files must be in a -devel package [-] static libraries must be in a -static package [-] containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [-] library files that end in .so: go in a -devel package [-] devel pkg: require base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] no .la libtool archives [x] gui app include a %{name}.desktop file [x] must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] %install includes rm -rf %{buildroot} [x] filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
In less than 1 week, Beda, the upstream programmer, will be releasing one new version of BKChem with two specific sources. One, specially prepared to avoid some problems with Fedora's criteria, like the issue with Piddle's licence. I'm only waiting for him.
Ok, that's great.
New files from lspooky: spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.3/bkchem.spec srpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.3/bkchem-0.12.3-1.fc9.src.rpm
Still tarball issue here: md5sum bkchem-0.12.3-nopiddle.tar.gz* cf44527c4e2ea770dec10dd8330e4182 bkchem-0.12.3-nopiddle.tar.gz 5937df0331fd7fcbfd5ef40b5923d59e bkchem-0.12.3-nopiddle.tar.gz.rpm lspooky, have you modified the tarball? Please fix this before we continue, then post links to spec and srpm.
Hi, Terje I've fixed some minor errors in the upstream tarbal. Beda have already fixed it in the upstream now, so, here we go again: [1] - bkchem.spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.3/bkchem.spec [2] - bkchem.src.rpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.3/bkchem-0.12.3-1.fc9.src.rpm
This is an inportant bugfix: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.4/bkchem.spec http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.4/bkchem-0.12.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
Ok, everything is fine here now: APPROVED Now it blocks on FE-NEEDSPONSOR, I am not a sponsor and can't help you there. Anyway I would recommend that you do some reviews, more info here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored
Henrique, do you have another review request by you or have any pre-review for other person's review request? To follow Fedora policy written on HowToGetSponsored wiki, I request new packages to do either of the two I wrote above. If you choose to do a pre-review of other person's 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
By the way - All codes are under GPLv2+ (or no license) and HTML files are under GFDL, so the license tag must be "GPLv2+ and GFDL". - This package uses some files from Python powerwidgets "Pmw", which is actually in Fedora as "python-pmw" (bug 462250: I reviewed...). Is it possible to make this package use system-wide python-pmw? (simply creating symlinks will be easier?) - I guess packaging oasa seperately will be better. http://bkchem.zirael.org/oasa_en.html
Hi, Mamoru, I will contact Beda Kosata to inquire about the possibility of creating links. Soon I'll post the answer here (In reply to comment #14) > By the way > > - All codes are under GPLv2+ (or no license) and HTML files > are under GFDL, so the license tag must be > "GPLv2+ and GFDL". > > - This package uses some files from Python powerwidgets > "Pmw", which is actually in Fedora as "python-pmw" > (bug 462250: I reviewed...). > Is it possible to make this package use system-wide > python-pmw? > (simply creating symlinks will be easier?) > > - I guess packaging oasa seperately will be better. > http://bkchem.zirael.org/oasa_en.html
Henrique, any news from the upstream?
(In reply to comment #16) > Henrique, any news from the upstream? Hello, Mamoru, unfortunately I don't have any feedback from the upstream yet. How should I proceed in the case of not receive any response? In any case, I will send another email and see what happens. I'm not giving up yet.
At least would you would you submit a seperate review request for orsa and make BkChem depend on (use) seperated orsa?
Good news! I just received a reply from Beda. There follows: -------------------- > - This package uses some files from Python powerwidgets > "Pmw", which is actually in Fedora as "python-pmw" > (bug 462250: I reviewed...). > Is it possible to make this package use system-wide > python-pmw? > (simply creating symlinks will be easier?) I am packaging Pmw together with BKChem because I had to fix a bug or two there and there was no upstream maintenance of Pmw going on. However, it is quite possible that the Pmw package in Fedora also has these fixes, so it might be possible to use the Fedora package. You can try it by simply deleting all files named Pmw*.py in bkchem and see if it would work when the Fedora package is installed. If yes, I could prepare a special package without Pmw. > > - I guess packaging oasa seperately will be better. (and packaging it separetely will pe necessari some code changes?) > I have started to release OASA just this year because of some interest in it. It would of course be able to have two separate packages, but then more effort would have to be put into keeping them in sync - when I release BKChem I always expect that it is used with the version of OASA that is current at the time. Failing to match versions of OASA and BKChem could lead to subtle and hard to find errors. On the other hand, it is not much of a problem for me to create a package of BKChem without OASA. > I know you must be very busy and although I am not an experienced programmer, if you guide me to do the necessary changes, I'll be happy to help. > All these things would not require that much time. Just let me know what I should remove from the package (as I do now with Piddle) and I will do it. ----------- So, I'll start the tests with python-pmw, reporting to Beda if some changes are necessary. Also, I will start the process of packaging OASA, and as is customary, I will request a review of the package.
After some tests, BKChem seems to work fine with Fedora's python-pmw, so the included pwm in BKChem will be dropped to avoid this obvious redundance. In the next step, I will start the packaging of OASA.
Here we go. BKChem worked perfectly with python-pmw from fedora. OASA is now on a separate package awaiting to be reviewed (Bug 476374) and all the tests with this new release of BKChem (using pithon-pmw and the new package of OASA) are going OK. SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/bkchem.spec SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/bkchem-0.12.5-1.fc10.src.rpm
Untill now, Beda was creating a tarball especially for Fedora, but it could be a substantially large working for him in the future. Following the advice of Terje, I created a patch that works directly on the upstream's "original". I hope I have done it correctly and that it is the best solution. SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/bkchem.spec SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/bkchem-0.12.5-2.fc10.src.rpm
Looks good, some minor things: o rpmlint: bkchem.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 34, tab: line 3) o use diff -x option or remove setup.py~ to clean up the patch. o use wget -N to get correct timestamp on tarball. o maybe change naming: bkchem.patch -> bkchem-remove-oasa.patch ? I see you are sponsored, congrats!
Some notes for 0.12.5-2: * License - As I said above, the license tag should be "GPLv2+ and GFDL" * About Patch1 - I guess the size of Patch1 is unneededly large. Would you - simply remove unneeded files - and create a patch for the rest part? (It seems actually only setup.py is patched?)
Hello, Mamoru, The patch 3 performs tasks in BKChem: * Remove the piddle plugin (excluding the folder, the files related and the entry in setup.py). Piddle is a plugin that is obsolete and will be removed from BKChem in the future because its functions are performed by pycairo today. Moreover, he had several problems of license that the upstream will not be able to solve). * Remove OASA's folder and removes the entries in setup.py. * Exclude Pmw*.py files that are redundant in fedora, since we have a python-pmw package already. Beda was creating a tarball especially for Fedora untill now, but applying patches to the official tarball seemed a better approach to the upstream and save its time. Is there any other alternative that I can take, Mamoru? Sorry if this is taking longer than necessary.
***The patch performs 3 tasks***
Here are the changes: * The name of the patch was changed to something more self explanatory "bkchem-exclude-oasa-piddle-pmw.patch"; * The license was added as GPLv2+ and GFDL; * The changelog explains about the adoption of the patch and what the patch does; * Rpmlint is not showing errors. In fact, the patch is absurdly large, 1.3 MB. Is it better to simply change the patch to rm commands directly into the file .spec and apply the patch only in the file setup.py? SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/bkchem.spec PATCH: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/bkchem-exclude-oasa-piddle-pmw.patch SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/bkchem-0.12.5-2.fc10.src.rpm
Here we go with a new proposed .spec[1] and a patch[2] much smaller. Also, of course, the SRPM[3]. [1] - http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/proposed/bkchem.spec [2] - http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/proposed/bkchem-setup.patch [3] - http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/proposed/bkchem-0.12.5-2.fc10.src.rpm
Please change the release number every time you modify your spec file to avoid confusion.
Done. Please, excuse me. SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/3/bkchem.spec SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/3/bkchem-0.12.5-3.fc10.src.rpm PATCH: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/3/bkchem-setup.patch
Looks good, however I suggest that one line in %changelog must be shorter than now (note that on %description rpmlint will complain if one line exceeds 79 characters)
Yeah, I suggest the following: rm -> %{__rm} or %{__rm} -> rm. It's normal to have Patch1 line right below SourceX line.
Thanks, Mamoru and Terje, Here are the changes. :) spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/4/bkchem.spec srpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/4/bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc10.src.rpm
Well, what I wanted to say is that long lines in %changelog should be divided into more than 2 lines, not saying that the contents of %changelog should be smaller... But all other things seems good.
Hello, sorry for the delay in responding, but I was working in another city these days and am still without access to a PC. Day 24 I will be back. I've made some changes in the .spec file according to your suggestions and rebuild the SRPM. spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/4/bkchem.spec srpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/4/bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc10.src.rpm
To Terje: Would you check the latest srpm by Henrique? It looks good to me.
Yes, this is package is in excellent shape. Please make CVS request after #476374 is closed.
Thank you, guys. I've made a CVS request for python-oasa following the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure (I hope this is the right procedure). I'll be waiting for your ok (or not) to bkchem too. Happy new year.
By the way for CVS request you don't have to wait for python-oasa review requst to completely be closed.
I've started a CVS request for bkchem too. Am I doing this ahead of time?
It's ok, continue.
Please fill in CVS request template.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: bkchem Short Description: Chemical drawing tool Owners: lspooky Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: terjeros mtasaka
cvs done.
bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc9
bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc10
bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update bkchem'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0081
bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update bkchem'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-0204
bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bkchem-0.12.5-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.