SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Emerillon is a map viewer for GNOME that has an extensible plugin architecture and Telepathy integration to enable app and location sharing and display of friends locations.
Nice, I was going to package this as well. Looks good, I really hope this will make it into the official repository soon. It's just 0.1 but imho it is already useful.
*** Bug 529561 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I can't rebuild emerillon the problem is not that libethos isn't in repo or BuildRequeres: intltool is missing. The problem is the dependency of rest quote of the build.log: checking for SEARCH_DEPS... configure: error: Package requirements ( rest >= 0.6 ) were not met: No package 'rest' found Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you installed software in a non-standard prefix. Alternatively, you may set the environment variables SEARCH_DEPS_CFLAGS and SEARCH_DEPS_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details.
License is unclear: COPYING is GPLv3, headers are LGPLv2+.
(In reply to comment #4) > License is unclear: COPYING is GPLv3, headers are LGPLv2+. Looking through the upstream git there is now a COPYING.LGPL file there (but the GPL3 COPYING file is still there) and I can only find references to LGPLv2+. I'm emailing upstream for clarification but updated the spec to LGPLv2+ In the mean time I've updated the build for the latest rest. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-2.fc12.src.rpm SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon.spec
License clarified by upstream: "My fault, the original plan was to have the new code under LGPLv2+ but emerillon globally as GPLv2+ due to some copied files. It looks like I copied by mistake the GPLv3 COPYING file instead than the GPLv2. This is not a big problem as the header in the files is right and this is the one with legal value and we - where by we I mean Pierre-Luc ;) - will fix it." http://www.ohloh.net/p/emerillon/analyses/latest SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-3.fc12.src.rpm
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint emerillon.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/emerillon.schemas emerillon-devel.i686: W: no-documentation OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: License files included in %doc OK - MUST: Spec is in American English OK - MUST: Spec is legible OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5 b8a5a7bf3c54b05be4b1358f285d0d40 OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i686 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. If you want to import this to f12, too, you should do a kojibuild for f12 to see if this will be build on all f12 supported architectures. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - 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 %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager muststate this fact in the request for review. OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. NOT OKAY - MUST: Consistently uses macros you mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_DIR OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package OK - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. 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. OK - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock. N/A - SHOULD: Functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg N/A - 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 items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete Issues: FIX macro-using correct the macro from $RPM_BUILD_DIR to %{buildroot} Simon, is this package okay?
> Issues: > FIX macro-using > correct the macro from $RPM_BUILD_DIR to %{buildroot} $RPM_BUILD_DIR is not the same as %{buildroot}. I'm not sure of the newer style macro for BUILD_DIR but its the equivalent to ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/ as opposed to ~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/. It will be short lived as it will be removed in the next upstream release.
(In reply to comment #8) > $RPM_BUILD_DIR is not the same as %{buildroot}. this is correct > I'm not sure of the newer style macro for BUILD_DIR %{builddir} Please take a look in /usr/lib/rpm/macros (LINE 836) (In reply to comment #7) > Simon, is this package okay? just a few notes... Peter, perhaps it is better to use the name-macro instead of the name in the file list! It would be nice if you could add a / to the directories in the filelist. %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/%{name} both looks like a file %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/%{name}/ differs directory and file in the includedir you should use a "*" instead of the versionnumber. it's easier for an update.
By the way ------------------------------------------------- # Copy in license from upstream git cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version} ------------------------------------------------- can be simplified as ------------------------------------------------- cp -p %{SOURCE1} . ------------------------------------------------- (please keep timestamps with adding -p option)
Updated: SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-4.fc12.src.rpm
> %{_bindir}/%{name}/ %{_bindir}/%{name} is a file, not a directory.
> %{_bindir}/%{name} is a file, not a directory. Good catch, rushed update. Now fixed. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-5.fc12.src.rpm
I had to do a: === modified file 'emerillon.spec' --- emerillon.spec 2010-01-05 00:59:09 +0000 +++ emerillon.spec 2010-01-05 00:59:27 +0000 @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ %patch1 -p1 -b .fixdesktop # Copy in license from upstream git -cp %{SOURCE1} %{builddir}/%{name}-%{version} +cp %{SOURCE1} . # Needed due to patch for rest detection libtoolize otherwise I got a: + /usr/bin/patch -s -p1 -b --suffix .fixdesktop --fuzz=0 + cp /home/fm/rpmbuild/SOURCES/COPYING.LGPL '%{builddir}/emerillon-0.1.0' cp: cannot create regular file `%{builddir}/emerillon-0.1.0': No such file or directory Fehler: Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oxoId7 (%prep) [fm@thinkpad ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib/rpm/macros rpm-4.7.2-1.fc12.i686
Simon ping?
What's up, Josephine? This pkg is not ready, Peter didn't follow Mamorus hint. btw, %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/%{name}.schemas should be marked as %config
(In reply to comment #16) > What's up, Josephine? This pkg is not ready, Peter didn't follow Mamorus hint. > btw, %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/%{name}.schemas should be marked as %config Actually the schema files even though they are in /etc are generally not marked as config as you want them updated when you update the package as the gconf schemas can change from version to version and aren't edited. They are not like a blah.conf that might have user changes and hence you don't want overwritten unless it checksums the same as the original one.
Some minor updates. Nobody had caught the libtool archives that were still hanging around either :-) SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-6.fc12.src.rpm
Yesterday a new version of emerillon was released, see http://www.novopia.com/emerillon/download.html
(In reply to comment #19) > Yesterday a new version of emerillon was released, see > http://www.novopia.com/emerillon/download.html Yes. Specially requested by me to pull in all the fixes and translations :-) SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
Thanks alot for updating the package. ;) I could rebuild it this time without any problem. Great. But somehow the search plugin is missing in my build from your src.rpm. In my self build version of emerillon I have a search bar on top of the window as shown on http://www.novopia.com/emerillon/. But with this rpm there are just three plugins (bookmarks, webpage, coordinates) and the search one is missing.
It seems like the disabling was intended: %build %configure --disable-static --disable-search make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1 changing that to --enable-search fixes the problem for me. I really thing this makes the program way more usefull.
> changing that to --enable-search fixes the problem for me. > > I really thing this makes the program way more usefull. Just dropping the disable configure option is enough. I seem to remember when I first compiled it there were issues and hence the reason for disabling it. I have issues with the plugins on my laptop GBO BZ 606539 , might be a x64 and path issue or my laptop. Are you running it on 32 or 64 bit machine? That's a separate issue to this anyway. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.1-2.fc12.src.rpm
Any update on finishing up this review?
Yeah it's okay. I was just waiting for the finish of ethos. to test if this srpm will work with your latest ethos-srpm, because there were a lot of changes. Nevermind! Approved!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: emerillon Short Description: A map viewer for GNOME Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-12 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Imported and built in rawhide. Thanks all for the review.