Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 524190
Review Request: flowcanvas - an interactive Gtkmm/Gnomecanvasmm widget for “boxes and lines” environments
Last modified: 2010-02-21 01:54:13 EST
Spec URL: http://dreamer.fedorapeople.org/drobilla/flowcanvas/flowcanvas.spec SRPM URL: http://dreamer.fedorapeople.org/drobilla/flowcanvas/flowcanvas-0.5.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: FlowCanvas is an interactive Gtkmm/Gnomecanvasmm widget for “boxes and lines” environments (ie modular synths or interactive finite state automata diagrams). This is my first package ever and I still need a sponsor. I decided to package this software because I wanted to include Patchage in yum and this is one of its dependencies. Other packages I will make after this will be Patchage itself and it's other dependency: Raul.
This fails to build for me; the patch doesn't apply: Patch #0 (flowcanvas-0.5.1.include-stdint.patch): + /bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/flowcanvas-0.5.1.include-stdint.patch + /usr/bin/patch -s -p0 -b --suffix .include-stdint --fuzz=0 The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- /home/dreamer/rpmbuild/BUILD/flowcanvas-0.5.1/flowcanvas/Connection.hpp.orig 2009-09-12 14:18:52.000000000 +0200 |+++ /home/dreamer/rpmbuild/BUILD/flowcanvas-0.5.1/flowcanvas/Connection.hpp 2009-09-12 14:19:20.000000000 +0200 -------------------------- File to patch: Skip this patch? [y] 1 out of 1 hunk ignored RPM build errors: Please try to ensure that your packages build properly before submitting them for review. If you read through http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers you can find instructions on using our build system to do scratch builds. Please clear the Whiteboard when this package is ready to be reviewed.
Thank you for helping Jason. I have now learned how to use mock to do a clean build and using it I've found the problem with the patch and another dependency I overlooked. It should build properly now.
Well, first of all some general packaging guidelines: * From the next time please change the release number of your spec file every time you modify it to avoid confusion. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes * If the software installs both system-wide libraries and some header files, - Then those files for development should be packaged into the seperate subpackage (usually named as "-devel" package) and should not be included in the main package. Please refer to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Devel_Packages You can base your spec file on a skeleton file provided by rpmdevtools rpm. After installing rpmdevtools, you can try $ rpmdev-newspec -t lib flowcanvas ( see $ rpmdev-newspec --help ) - And Fedora already has many srpms of this type, for example: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/oniguruma/devel/oniguruma.spec?view=co * Please don't use _unpackaged_files_terminate_build and correct %files entry (if there are some mistakes) * You can use "rpmlint" command (in rpmlint rpm) to detect some generic packaging mistakes. Please check your srpm / rebuilt binary rpm / installed rpm with rpmlint. * Please use "%{name}.spec" for the name of the spec file. Then some notes: * Summary should begin with capital letter * "GPL" is not a valid license tag for Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL * Please use macros correctly. ! Note that your srpm still does not build on 64 bits architecture. On 64 bits architecture libraries are to be installed under /usr/lib64, not /usr/lib. Anyway using %{_libdir} macro will fix this problem, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros * Using %{version} macro is preferred because with it you probably won't have to change the SourceURL when version is upgraded: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D - Consider to use -------------------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" -------------------------------------------------------------- to keep timestamps on installed files as much as possible. This method usually works for Makefiles generated by recent autotools. * For rpms installing system-wide libraries, please check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries * For %files: - Please create -devel subpackages and move developement related files into it. ! And note that every package containing pkgconfig .pc file should have "Requires: pkgconfig": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files ! Also see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package - libtool .la files should be removed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries - Please take care of directory ownership issue. The directory %{_includedir}/flowcanvas/ itself is not owned by any packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes
ping?
I'm sorry, this is a lot of stuff for which I don't know where to start really and atm I'm trying to finish my bachelors which of course has priority. Maybe I'll look into this somewhere next month when I have time to really sit down for it. Thank you for pointing these things out though. It is quite difficult to get into this whole packaging business.
I believe that the OP wanted to have patchage [1] in Fedora. This is one of the dependencies. Another dependency is raul which I just submitted to review here: bug 541535 [1] http://drobilla.net/software/patchage/
Setting needinfo.
ping again?
Again ping?
I will close this bug if no response is received from the reporter within ONE WEEK.
Once closing. If someone wants to import this package into Fedora, please file a new review request and mark this bug as a duplicate of the new one. Thank you!
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 567027 ***