Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/stransky/python/xulrunner-python.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/stransky/python/xulrunner-python-1.9.2-1.20091125hg.fc11.src.rpm Description: Files needed to run Gecko applications written in python. Former part of xulrunner package.
Just a few comments for now: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define - Why do you use add_files and not the normal %files section? - Why do you install in a own created directory and don't use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT? - nspr_version is not existent. Is it even needed?
Thanks for the comments! (In reply to comment #1) > Just a few comments for now: > - Why do you use add_files and not the normal %files section? Because the file list is dynamically generated from pkg-config and depends on recently installed xulrunner package. > - Why do you install in a own created directory and don't use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT? $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used...see add_files() macro. the %{builddir} is only a shortcut. > - nspr_version is not existent. Is it even needed? Ahh, good point, nspr_version has to be added.
*** Bug 551292 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Thanks for working on this. Looks like we can drop the patch, the upstream maintainer just said in #pyxpcom: (09:20:39 PM) toddw: tomeu: the patch is out of date - this was already fixed in pyxpcom trunk (09:20:40 PM) toddw: http://hg.mozilla.org/pyxpcom/rev/8e0661d279a9 (09:20:45 PM) toddw: http://hg.mozilla.org/pyxpcom/rev/2cb5add2914a
(In reply to comment #4) > Thanks for working on this. Looks like we can drop the patch, the upstream > maintainer just said in #pyxpcom: > > (09:20:39 PM) toddw: tomeu: the patch is out of date - this was already fixed > in pyxpcom trunk > (09:20:40 PM) toddw: http://hg.mozilla.org/pyxpcom/rev/8e0661d279a9 > (09:20:45 PM) toddw: http://hg.mozilla.org/pyxpcom/rev/2cb5add2914a Yes, I know, but I prefer to get review for this working version and then do any other update.
Some initial comments, and if you can the so an updated package I'll do a full review - no gecko-devel-unstable in rawhide. I think its all in xulrunner-devel now? - no %{nspr_version} but AFAICT it would be the same version as required by xulrunner-devel it should automatically be pulled in so is redundant - Summary/Description could be improved "Files needed to run" is sort of redundant - I think you need to explicitly list files - doesn't build in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1912043 Needs at least: BuildRequires: autoconf213 BuildRequires: python-devel It then builds on x64 but not 32 bit http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1912049 - No need for empty %preun
Updated package uploaded, fixes all comments except the file list. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/stransky/python/xulrunner-python.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/stransky/python/xulrunner-python-1.9.2-1.20100111hg.fc12.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1913521
A few minor things that need to be addressed + rpmlint output rpmlint xulrunner-python-* xulrunner-python.src: E: percent-in-dependency nspr-devel >= %{nspr_version} xulrunner-python.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python interface for mozilla XPCOM library. xulrunner-python.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 1) xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python interface for mozilla XPCOM library. xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.9.2-1.20091125hg ['1.9.2-1.20100111hg.fc13', '1.9.2-1.20100111hg'] xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig xulrunner-python-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development files for python XPCOM interface. xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + latest version packaged - %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 67eeb7bd7bc519a8adadc976e660791c virt-mem-0.2.9.tar.gz + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build - BuildRequires list all build dependencies issues with undefined %{nspr_version} n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel + devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: - if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
An updated version is here: http://people.redhat.com/stransky/python/xulrunner-python.spec http://people.redhat.com/stransky/python/xulrunner-python-1.9.2-2.20100111hg.fc11.src.rpm Fixes: - removed nspr-devel/%{nspr_version} - removed dots - added -p to %post/%postun - fixed changelog Only problem which remains is: xulrunner-python-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources It needs extra work, find-debuginfo.sh is unable to locate sources because they are build with relative paths. We may need to rewrite the build scripts for it. Let's file a bug for it and fix it later.
> Only problem which remains is: > > xulrunner-python-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources > > It needs extra work, find-debuginfo.sh is unable to locate sources because they > are build with relative paths. We may need to rewrite the build scripts for it. > Let's file a bug for it and fix it later. OK, can you update this bug with the details of the other bug once filed. Other than that this now looks OK. Approved.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xulrunner-python Short Description: Python interface for mozilla XPCOM library Owners: stransky Branches: InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py)
Martin: ping, would be useful to have this in rawhide so we can start testing sugar-browse against the latest xulrunner.
Ping! What's the status here? We really need this one to have Sugar Browse working.
This has been built for Rawhide now. Great work everybody! :)