Spec URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox.spec SRPM URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox-0.4.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Paperbox is a document browser. It lets you nicely view your ebooks, office and text documents and organise them by tags. Relying on Tracker, it is able to instantly discover all documents on your desktop, and present them in a convenient way. Tags and other metadata are shared across all Tracker-based applications.
- Judging from the Paperbox install page the buildrequires should be gtkmm-utils-devel boost-devel gtkmm24-devel glibmm24-devel libglademm-devel goocanvas-devel libgnomeui-devel tracker-devel dbus-glib-devel Now you have gtkmm24-devel and tracker-devel listed twice. - Also, you need Requires: hicolor-icon-theme for dir ownership.
Well, at least BR: libgnomeui-devel is missing: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/paperbox/MOCK-paperbox.log ! By the way, as seen above you can still try mockbuild even if BR contains not-yet-approved packages by setting local yum repository.
Spec URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox.spec SRPM URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox-0.4.2-1.fc10.src.rpm There is the latest revision. I have added and tidy the BR, I am reasonably sure that they are correct, I'm in the middle of moving at the minute and am aware i have not done much in a few days (week) and wanted to post. This should be complete however as times are hectic. Thanks Mamoru for the log was helpful. Have not studied it greatly but will do so. Tomorrow or at least sometime this week.
Just a note: - Please change the release number of your spec/srpm every time you modify them to avoid confusion.
I apologise i do change the revision i just copied the wrong link, here is the latest one SRPM URL: http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox-0.4.2-2.fc10.src.rpm
OK, I'll have a look after you have fixed the remaining issues in gtkmm-utils.
(Note that I don't intend to do full-review on this package, I am just trying to check if this package correctly builds) 0.4.2-2.fc10 won't build on F-12 because of another issue: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/paperbox/MOCK-paperbox-x86_64-2.fc10.log With the following patch, at least on F-12 i386/x86_64 this package builds (again I just checked if this package builds or not) http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/paperbox/paperbox-0.4.2-g++44.patch http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/paperbox/MOCK-paperbox-i586-modified-2.fc10.log http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/paperbox/MOCK-paperbox-x86_64-modified-fc10.log
ping?
ping again John
Hello no movement as per your comment #6 Jussi. Have no updated gtkmm-utils as you no doubt know.
(In reply to comment #10) > Hello no movement as per your comment #6 Jussi. Have no updated gtkmm-utils as > you no doubt know. Right. ** There's no need to run --remove-key Encoding \ you can --remove-category=GNOME as it doesn't serve any purpose in Fedora and the Applications category is obsolete, so drop --add-category Applications \ (keep the --remove-category=Application) ** You're running desktop-file-install, so you should give as source file data/paperbox.desktop instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/paperbox.desktop ** The package builds for Fedora 10, but not for Fedora 11. This will have to be fixed. Too bad Mamoru has already removed the necessary patch. ** You are missing the %posttrans phase of the icon cache update. ** The license is GPLv2+ not GPLv2 (see source code).
Created attachment 355380 [details] gcc44 patch, works on F-12 (In reply to comment #11) > The package builds for Fedora 10, but not for Fedora 11. This will have to be > fixed. Too bad Mamoru has already removed the necessary patch. Ah, I thought paperbox was already imported... Only tested on F-12 i686 (again I just checked if the srpm builds or not)
ping
http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox-0.4.3-4.fc11.src.rpm http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox.spec No rpmlint issues, changed as per recommendation. I also change to new upstream source 0.4.3, I am now running fc11 and compiles fine without any use of patches i assume this will be the same for fc12 ?
Yes, seems to build fine in rawhide. Reset the release to 1, as you've updated the version.
rpmlint output is clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Don't mix '%{name}' and 'paperbox' in %files. Choose one and stick with it. - You can use longer lines in %description and fit it in 5 lines. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. NEEDSWORK - Drop --add-category="X-Fedora", it isn't used. MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
That's the final two fixes done FILES http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox-0.4.3-2.fc11.src.rpm http://garethsrpms.googlecode.com/files/paperbox.spec
You didn't update the spec file, it is still at 0.4.3-4. (It took me a while to remember that I told you to reset the release.) ** I'd divide the description as Paperbox is a document browser. It lets you nicely view your ebooks, office and text documents and organise them by tags. Relying on Tracker, it is able to instantly discover all documents on your desktop, and present them in a convenient way. Tags and other metadata are shared across all Tracker-based applications. as IMHO it looks a bit cleaner this way. With this comment the package is APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: paperbox Short Description: A GTK tracker based document browser Owners: gljohn Branches: F10 F11 InitialCC: n/a
Branches are named "F-10", "F-11", etc. I've fixed that up. CVS done.