Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/vtg.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/vtg-0.3.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Vala Toys for gEdit is an experimental collection of plugins that extends the gEdit editor to make it a better programmer editor for the Vala language. Vtg tries to make less compromises as possible so, for now, its scope is narrowed only to support Vala. It is written in Vala and it is currently composed of just one plugin with four modules: * Bracket completion module * Symbol completion module * Project Manager - based on the gnome build framework library * Project builder / executer
First some general comments: I've done some vala packages before and they were all named "vala-*" or "*-vala". eg. bug 214227, bug 454668, vala-tools, etc. I suspect we need Vala-specific packaging guidelines in this area. > vscsymbolcompletion.c:63:38: error: vala/valastructvaluetype.h: > No such file or directory We are missing a dependency somehow. vala-devel package does not have this header file. It helps if you could do a Koji scratch build of your package, since that will ensure that all missing BRs have been found. koji build --scratch dist-f11 yourpackage.src.rpm > %setup -q -n vtg-%{version} -n argument not required here (but will be if the package gets a different name ...) > %configure --docdir=%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version} Is this right? I would have written: --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} > %doc %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}
$ rpm -qf /usr/include/vala-1.0/vala/valastructvaluetype.h vala-devel-0.5.6-1.fc11.x86_64 The file is in 0.5.6 which is in updates-testing. Unfortunately, I can't do a Koji build until gtksourcecompletion lands. %setup: I put the -n because I'm not sure about the name either. vala-vtg or gedit-vtg? I'd say gedit-vala, since it seems safe to assume the project will be gedit-specific. Thoughts? docdir: agreed, thanks. Let me know which name seems preferable and I'll update the spec.
(In reply to comment #2) > $ rpm -qf /usr/include/vala-1.0/vala/valastructvaluetype.h > vala-devel-0.5.6-1.fc11.x86_64 > > The file is in 0.5.6 which is in updates-testing. Unfortunately, > I can't do a Koji build until gtksourcecompletion lands. OK got this update. Now I get this error: No translations found for vtg in /home/rjones/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/vtg-0.3.2-1.fc10.x86_64 Sorry, I'm having to do this on Fedora 10 because my Rawhide machine has popped its clogs. > %setup: > I put the -n because I'm not sure about the name either. vala-vtg or gedit-vtg? > I'd say gedit-vala, since it seems safe to assume the project will be > gedit-specific. Thoughts? Personally I don't care - it's something that might need to be raised with packaging committee though. In any case it's not a blocking issue. > docdir: agreed, thanks. > > Let me know which name seems preferable and I'll update the spec.
Bizarre: rpm -ql vtg | grep LC_MESSAGES /usr/share/locale/es_AR/LC_MESSAGES/vtg.mo /usr/share/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/vtg.mo and the intltool dependency (which should pull gettext and gettext-devel; I just dropped the redundant gettext dependency from my .spec) should ensure that these are buildable. Could you check the content of vtg-0.3.2/po and try running 'make' there? We'll find out once GtkSourceCompletion goes in and we can use Koji in any case.
Just noticed a test for LC_MESSAGES in ./configure that might be relevant: it tried compiling a file that includes locale.h, which is in glibc-headers. This is not listed as something that is explicitly pulled in by Koji in the packaging guidelines, but in my experience it's always installed anyway (it can be uninstalled cleanly if you also remove sectool and sectool-gui). Could you check if glibc-headers is installed? Thanks.
Yes, I've got gettext, gettext-devel and glibc-headers. Running 'make install' explicitly in the po directory does install the correct files. Configure indicates that it has found all the right tools. I will attach the build log anyway in case you can see anything.
Created attachment 331329 [details] Log file of rpmbuild on Fedora 10
checking for VTGPLUGIN... no Ah, of course, I missed a BR on gnome-build-devel. http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/gedit-vala.spec http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/gedit-vala-0.3.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
Created attachment 331341 [details] Patch to gedit-vala.spec It was missing GConf2-devel. There are some other problems too which I've fixed in this patch.
rpmlint output: gedit-vala.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 16)
+ rpmlint output But better to fix the small problem in comment 11. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines Discussed on fedora-packaging mailing list here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-February/msg00022.html + 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 ---------------------------------- This is as far as I got with the review. There is some confusing stuff going on with the documentation in this package. It should appear in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} but instead appears directly under /usr/share. ? %doc includes license file ? spec file written in American English ? spec file is legible ? upstream sources match sources in the srpm ? 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
vtg provides vala-gen-project, which generates a skeleton Vala project; the files in /usr/share/vtg/licenses are for the use of the project generator. That being said, there were a couple of errors I introduced during the name change, and there were some tabs in the file too. Fixed now at the same URL.
(In reply to comment #13) > vtg provides vala-gen-project, which generates a skeleton Vala project; the > files in /usr/share/vtg/licenses are for the use of the project generator. No that's not what I meant. I meant this directory: /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2 which is seemingly [Fedora] documentation, not data. The root cause of the problem seems to be this: %files [...] %doc %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version} This should all be in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} (ie. /usr/share/doc/gedit-vala-0.3.2)
Ah, my mistake. I was fixing the %configure flag, but the --docdir switch there is actually ignored, and forgot about the actually-effective directive in %install. Fixed now. Per Toshio's email to packaging, is there any preference between gedit-vtg and gedit-vala? For searchability, I'd say gedit-vala makes more sense, but gedit-vtg will be closer to the upstream name.
(In reply to comment #15) > Ah, my mistake. I was fixing the %configure flag, but the --docdir switch there > is actually ignored, and forgot about the actually-effective directive in > %install. No there still seems to be a problem there. rpm -qlp shows: [...] /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2 /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/AUTHORS /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/COPYING /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/COPYING-GPL /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/COPYING-LGPL /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/ChangeLog /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/INSTALL /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/NEWS /usr/share/gedit-vala-0.3.2/README [...] Can you bump the release number and post some new URLs just in case there is some caching problem at this end. > Fixed now. Per Toshio's email to packaging, is there any preference between > gedit-vtg and gedit-vala? For searchability, I'd say gedit-vala makes more > sense, but gedit-vtg will be closer to the upstream name. I really don't care either way.
Ah, yes. Not a caching problem -- I use scripts to maintain my reviewed packages, and previously had had to manually push new SRPMS. I simply forgot to upload the new SPRM. Bumped release here: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/gedit-vala-0.3.2-3.fc11.src.rpm
Continuing the review from comment 12 ... + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 132006e82ed6cce5b5ed6ee10b2b63ab / 477402 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture x86_64 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun n/a 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 + 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 + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin ---------------------------------------- This package is APPROVED by rjones ----------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gedit-vala Short Description: Vala Toys for gEdit Owners: salimma Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC:
cvs done.
gedit-vala-0.3.2-3.fc10.1 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 gedit-vala'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2019
gedit-vala-0.3.2-3.fc10.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.