Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL-0.9.9-1.src.rpm Description: OpenGTL provides tools, languages and libraries to create generic transformations for graphics. These transformations can be used by different programs, e.g. Krita, Gimp, CinePaint, etc.
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL-0.9.9-2.fc11.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Sep 03 2009 Rex Dieter <rdieter> - 0.9.9-2 - generate doxygen docs - ExcludeArch: ppc64 (to match llvm) scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1653755
*** Bug 455500 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
checked for latest OpenGTL-0.9.10, but the build aborts with: llvm was build with asserts, this is not supported by OpenGTL. I'll have to find out the details here, and why llvm is built that way on fedora.
[XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. % rpmlint *.rpm OpenGTL-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on OpenGTL/OpenGTL-libs/libOpenGTL OpenGTL-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation OpenGTL-libs.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/OpenGTL/GTLImageIO/Extensions/libRawDC.so OpenGTL-libs.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/OpenGTL/GTLImageIO/Extensions/libPngDC.so OpenGTL-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Seems to be LGPLv2+ in headers of sources. [OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [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: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] MUST: The package <b>MUST</b> successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [OK] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using <code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden. [OK] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>. [OK] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [OK] 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. [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every <code>%files</code> section must include a <code>%defattr(...)</code> line. [OK] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains <code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code> (<a href="/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags" title="Packaging/Guidelines" class="mw-redirect">or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT</a>). [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [OK] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [OK] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [OK] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [OK] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [OK] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} </code> [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [OK] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [OK] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [OK] MUST: At the beginning of <code>%install</code>, each package MUST run <code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code> (<a href="/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags" title="Packaging/Guidelines" class="mw-redirect">or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT</a>). [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [OK] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [OK] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [OK] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [OK] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [OK] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Other: Doxygen is built, but I don't see any docs in %files. Is it not installed?
docs are in devel: %doc html/* I'll check about the arch'd stuff under %%_datadir (eww).
OK, initial update addressing the fhs issue, and a couple other cosmetic ones: SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL-0.9.10-1.fc11.src.rpm Not buildable on fedora atm, due to llvm's --enable-assertions , see bug #521261
Cc:ing myself on this bug, since this affects how fast LLVM 2.6 can be pushed to F-11. There is an upstream task here: http://bugs.opengtl.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=33 but no completion ETA yet (it's scheduled for 0.9.11). I'm testing revision 7 of our LLVM 2.5 package (-6 was Rawhide-only) that I will try and push straight to F-10 and F-11 stable so OpenGTL can be entered soon. Actually, what is our policy on a package that is not Rawhide-buildable? What happens if F-12 comes out before OpenGTL 0.9.11? The Clang Static Analyzer alone argues in favor of LLVM 2.6.
Any update on this?
Waiting on OpenGTL-0.9.11 release to fix llvm-2.6 issue, tracked here: http://bugs.opengtl.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=33
Rex did you mean that this bug DEPENDS on bug 473302, should it rather BLOCK it?
Yeah, but it can be dropped now, we're not planning on shipping koffice2 in F-12, so the need for this isn't as urgent (still would be nice however).
...meanwhile it's harder to do Krita2 /development/ without OpenGTL. Until 0.9.10 became required (which doesn't build with the current llvm, as we all know), I had been relying on home-build packages. Right now I have no OpenGTL at all :-(, which means a whole bunch of features missing from Krita. So while I agree with Rex it "isn't as urgent", it would still be *very* nice.
SPEC: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL.spec SRPM: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL-0.9.11-1.fc12.src.rpm f12 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1787446 %changelog * Wed Nov 04 2009 Rex Dieter <rdieter> - 0.9.11-1 - OpenGTL-0.9.11 (this release supports llvm-2.6, woo!)
Well, builds on x86_64, ppc (at least), not so much, CMakeLists reports: llvm was build with PIC enabled, this is not surported on 32bits. Added ExcludeArch: ppc for now, until I can look closer at that. New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1787453
SPEC: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL.spec SRPM: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL-0.9.12-1.fc12.src.rpm f12 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1824913 %changelog * Fri Nov 20 2009 Rex Dieter <rdieter> - 0.9.12-1 - OpenGTL-0.9.12
SPEC: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL.spec SRPM: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL-0.9.12-1.fc12.src.rpm f12 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1825143 %changelog * Mon Nov 23 2009 Rex Dieter <rdieter> - 0.9.12-2 - BR: ImageMagick ghostscript texlive-latex texlive-dvips (docs)
Any idea when this will hit F12? Note: I had to change the setup line from 'opengtl' to 'OpenGTL-%{version}' to build the .spec from comment #16.
Ben, ping? anything else to do here?
Ben, pingy pingy... it's been a couple of months since your last comment here, will you be able to finish this review, or should we be looking for someone else?
Sorry for the delay, winter break was less tech-oriented than I had planned. Just a small issue with some permissions. Does installdox need installed itself? % rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-12-x86_64/result/*.rpm - OpenGTL-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/OpenGTL-devel-0.9.12/installdox OpenGTL-devel.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/OpenGTL-devel-0.9.12/installdox /usr/bin/perl OpenGTL-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Other than that, looks good.
Looks like installdox doesn't serve much purpose packaging-wise, I'll omit it.
SPEC: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/OpenGTL/OpenGTL.spec %changelog * Sun Jan 24 2010 Rex Dieter <rdieter> - 0.9.12-3 - omit html/installdox
Looks good to me. Approved.
Also mentioned on IRC: %setup needs some tweaking and the rm needs to go to %install, but not a review blocker.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: OpenGTL Short Description: Graphics Transformation Languages Owners: rdieter Branches: F-12 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
OpenGTL-0.9.12-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/OpenGTL-0.9.12-3.fc12
OpenGTL-0.9.12-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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 OpenGTL'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-1155
OpenGTL-0.9.12-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.