A split from ibus-table-chinese, which was sub-package of ibus-table. Uploading srpm and spec.
http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220-1.fc11.src.rpm http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec
Changed Requires: from ibus to ibus-table. Same URL of comment #1.
First question that comes to mind is why are the db files generated at install time rather than build-time? Peng Huang, is that to save payload space?
The db files are generated at buid-time but without index. It is for reducing the size of package files. The commands in %post is for creating the index. I think it is OK.
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220-1.fc11.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec Description: A split from ibus-table-chinese, which was sub-package of ibus-table.
build failed-> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1219412 also I see you included COPYING with text of GPLv3 and license tag in spec is GPLv2.
Added "BuildRequires" automake. Updated license # to GPLv3. Rebuilt. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220-2.fc11.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec
FYI, coment# 7 is built successfully with mock on 6 MAR 08 rawhide.
Created attachment 334251 [details] ibus-table-cangjie.spec-1.patch - no need to rebootstrap - silence setup Still does not build on i386 since ibus-table.noarch contains /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/ibus-table.pc!
Created attachment 334255 [details] ibus-table-cangjie.spec-2.patch This now builds correctly after I fixed pkgconfig in ibus-table to be noarch, and even installs without errors. ;o) However after installing and restarting ibus I couldn't find the Cangjie tables in the ibus menu.
rpmlint says: ibus-table-cangjie.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220/AUTHORS ibus-table-cangjie.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Cang Jie input methods for ibus-table. Please fix those.
Applied patch in comment #10. Updated AUTHORS. Fixed summary-ended-with-dot. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220-3.fc11.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec
Tested on latest rawhide w/ koji ibus-table-1.1.0.20090220-5.fc11.noarch, cangjie 3 and 5 are in ibus-setup to be enabled.
spec and srpm links are reversed above again srpm is missing: you still need a patch?
patch is updated http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220-3.fc11.src.rpm
If the cangjie tables are from the public domain, then the license should reflect that. I think we need a new upstream package with the correct license.
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090220-4.fc11.src.rpm Updated rpm proposal. Cloning to upstream now.
It is possible to request a new upstream release or do a snapshot to fix the license issue: I don't patching the license file is a good idea.
Sure. Will do.
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090309-1.fc11.src.rpm Updated to latest upstream sources.
%post no longer needed? Is it better to separate Quick and Cangjie or to keep them together?
Files generated in %post (.db files) are actually created during running of autogen.sh. I have modified the upstream configure.ac to even get quick 3 and 5 generated at once, too. If you think that is a better solution for separating quick and cangjie into different packages, I would not mind. However, this involves creation of "quick" tarball on upstream sources system, modification of current cangjie tarball, package creation of "quick" and its review, etc. Personally I prefer to do it after package review of all other 5 ibus-table-* done.
(In reply to comment #24) > Files generated in %post (.db files) are actually created during running of > autogen.sh. Ok I will check but what about comment 4: shouldn't the indices be added at installed time? > Personally I prefer to do it after package review of all other 5 ibus-table-* > done. Yep, adding ibus-table-quick later is fine: well whatever upstream decides - but sounds like it makes sense to separate the quicks into a separate package. :)
(In reply to comment #25) > Yep, adding ibus-table-quick later is fine: well whatever upstream decides - > but sounds like it makes sense to separate the quicks into a separate package. > :) Upstream has granted this decision make to me. :)
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090309-2.fc11.src.rpm Added index creation in %post for cangjie{3,5} and quick {3,5}.
Created attachment 334902 [details] ibus-table-cangjie.spec-3.patch With this it builds again in mock and some macro use fixes. (Just change %bcond_without to %bcond_with to turn off bootstrapping.)
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090309-3.fc11.src.rpm Patched from comment #28.
Created attachment 334904 [details] ibus-table-cangjie.spec-4.patch This patch should do the --no-create-index properly: with my inspection NO_INDEX is (now?) a no-op. Better would be to change this upstream to be a configure option (--without-index).
I guess now %post may change the checksum of the db files at install - so probably they should be labelled such in %files.
Also if COPYING only applies to icons I think it would be better to move it to the icons directory upstream otherwise it is a bit misleading or labelled as such at least.
Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output [+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible. [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release 21b4c23cd7c700330d7006d8c38f3b2e ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090309.tar.gz [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [?] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Any Chinese translation available? [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. However words/minute feature should be disabled. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Apart from comment 31, I think the package looks ok now.
I think Requires(post) should be used on this srpm to ensure the correct rpm order.
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090309-5.fc11.src.rpm - check md5 for .db files - move COPYING to icons/ - requires ibus-table for post-install
Looks good to me now, thanks Package is APPROVED.
Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: ibus-table-cangjie Short Description: Cangjie and Quick input method for ibus-table. Owners: cchance Branches: N/A (devel) InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ibus-table-cangjie-1.1.0.20090309-6.fc11.src.rpm refined license for tables/
cvs admin done; for reference: [[ Package Name: ibus-table-cangjie Short Description: Cangjie input method tables for ibus-table Owners: cchance Branches: devel InitialCC: i18n-team ]]
Built to rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=94216
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ibus-table-cangjie New Branches: F-10 Owners: cchance
cvs done.