SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-vala.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-vala-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm GUPnP is an object-oriented open source framework for creating UPnP devices and control points, written in C using GObject and libsoup. The GUPnP API is intended to be easy to use, efficient and flexible. This package adds vala language bindings
Missing BuildRequires on vala-tools (for vapigen). After that it fails to build: make[2]: Entering directory `/home/rjones/rpmbuild/BUILD/gupnp-vala-0.2/tests' VALAC test-publisher VALAC server-test VALAC proxy-test VALAC browsing-test VALAC test-browser server-test.vala:80.9-80.41: error: use of possibly unassigned local variable `filter' make[2]: *** [server-test] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... /tmp/ccmQDEmL.o: In function `test_browsing_test_main': browsing-test.c:(.text+0xb1): undefined reference to `g_thread_init' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status error: cc exited with status 256 make[2]: *** [browsing-test] Error 1 /tmp/ccA2KrmW.o: In function `test_proxy_test_main': proxy-test.c:(.text+0x6b): undefined reference to `g_thread_init' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status error: cc exited with status 256 make[2]: *** [proxy-test] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/rjones/rpmbuild/BUILD/gupnp-vala-0.2/tests' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/rjones/rpmbuild/BUILD/gupnp-vala-0.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 ? rpmlint output ? package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines ? specfile name matches the package base name ? package should satisfy packaging guidelines ? license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora ? license matches the actual package license ? %doc includes license file ? spec file written in American English ? spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm a7b78c99346ac4dd79847a060ac3cfd8 ? package successfully builds on at least one architecture ? ExcludeArch bugs filed ? BuildRequires list all build dependencies ? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* ? binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun ? does not use Prefix: /usr ? package owns all directories it creates ? no duplicate files in %files ? %defattr line ? %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ? consistent use of macros ? package must contain code or permissible content ? large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage ? files marked %doc should not affect package ? header files should be in -devel ? static libraries should be in -static ? packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' ? libfoo.so must go in -devel ? -devel must require the fully versioned base ? packages should not contain libtool .la files ? packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file ? packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages ? %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. ? filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: ? if there is no license file, packager should query upstream ? translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available ? reviewer should build the package in mock ? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures ? review should test the package functions as described ? scriptlets should be sane ? pkgconfig files should go in -devel ? shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
New upstream release that fixes build issues. SPEC is same location. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-vala-0.4-1.fc10.src.rpm
Update to the latest upstream release SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-vala.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-vala-0.5-1.fc10.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1051177
OK I'll look at this today.
Created attachment 328966 [details] Patch to add BR libsoup-devel You need the patch attached here. I will continue the review assuming you have added this patch.
- rpmlint output gupnp-vala.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vala/vapi/gssdp-1.0.deps gupnp-vala.x86_64: E: no-binary gupnp-vala-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. I think the first & third errors are real ones which need to be looked at. Not sure about the 'no-binary' error. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora - license matches the actual package license No, the license is LGPLv2+ + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 26f9c6d5de9a300cf2ec3cc04313e2ea 104744 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture x86_64 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies (assuming you add the BR in the patch in comment 5) + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available - reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin A few things to fix there.
> gupnp-vala.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vala/vapi/gssdp-1.0.deps > gupnp-vala.x86_64: E: no-binary > gupnp-vala-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. > > I think the first & third errors are real ones which > need to be looked at. Not sure about the 'no-binary' > error. I've queried the first one upstream and awaiting a response but I'm not sure whether the 3rd one is actually an issue as vala actually generates C code which is then compiled do I don't think language bindings would generate executable code and hence there wouldn't be any debuginfo. See http://live.gnome.org/Vala/ for basic details. As I can't see any vala specific guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines I'm going to query fedora-devel > - license matches the actual package license > > No, the license is LGPLv2+ I've fixed this locally but I haven't put up a new version until I've fixed/clarified the others above.
Any progress on this one?
I've got no response from my email about vala packaging guidelines to fedora-devel so not quite sure where to take it from here.
I've updated the package with the latest version. SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-vala.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-vala-0.5.3-1.fc10.src.rpm As this package is language bindings for a language that generates C code for compiling I don't believe the rpmlint output is really valid. The files included are all for development not running of apps. $ rpmlint /home/perobinson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/gupnp-vala-0.5.3-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm gupnp-vala.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/gupnp-vala-1.0.pc gupnp-vala.x86_64: E: no-binary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
gupnp-vala is indeed a development-only package, and it's too bad that rpmlint cannot really handle that. I'll be using it for building rygel (review request coming soon, will block on this); could I help with any remaining issue? (I maintain the main vala packages)
Hi Michal, I actually have a rygel package built that I was planning on putting in for a review request too.
It's Michel :) Could you submit the rygel package for review? I'll take a look at it. Some comments on gupnp-vala (indented because I copied-and-pasted; I tried submitting right after your reply) I just filed a bug report for gupnp-devel's missing dependencies: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488078 You might want to note it in the spec; once this bug is closed, the BR on libsoup-devel can go away. The BR on gssdp-devel can already be removed, since it's pulled in by gupnp-devel. Looks like gupnp-devel need to be depended on directly, due to the versioning requirement. Also, this should probably be noarch, and Requires: vala. Unfortunately, until the gupnp packages in updates-testing land, we'd have to Koji-build this on Rawhide only. I'm testing the suggested changes right now: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1213450
Updating libgee right now, for rigel. Looks like my noarch suggestion does not work -- configure does not like noarch-redhat-linux. Any idea how to solve this (if the package is indeed noarch)? I'll redo the build, with arch, and then compare the generated files.
Created attachment 333757 [details] Some dependencies fixes, plus changes for noarch %configure builds for noarch just fine if we override --target. This is safe, as the generated files are bit-by-bit identical anyway. I've turned on unit tests as well, even though none seem to be enabled at the moment (make check returns really quickly).
Sorry, I didn't mean to get your name wrong but I was typing this as I was running out the door for a fire alarm. I'll do the review request for rygel shortly and also look at the gupnp-devel bug shortly. For the noarch its on my ToDo list to investigate before the F11 beta but the last couple of weeks at work has been hectic!
I'm happy with this package now. All the issues which I found in comment 6 have been corrected by the new package in comment 10. I'm also happy if you wish to apply the patch from comment 15. --------------------------------- So, APPROVED by rjones ---------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gupnp-vala Short Description: Vala language bindings for the GUPnP framework. Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-10 EL-5 InitialCC:
Thanks Richard. Will add Michel's patch shortly.
CVS Done
Imported and built in rawhide
gupnp-vala-0.5.3-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gupnp-vala-0.5.3-4.fc10
Closing as its headed to rawhide and submitted as an update for F-10
gupnp-vala-0.5.3-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.