Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm-2.21.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: atkmm provides a C++ interface for the ATK library. Highlights include typesafe callbacks, widgets extensible via inheritance and a comprehensive set of widget classes that can be freely combined to quickly create complex user interfaces.
atkmm used to be part of gtkmm, but it was split out to make it easier to have gtkmm24 and gtkmm30 parallel installable. This package currently Conflicts: gtkmm24 < 2.21.1 because both atkmm and gtkmm24 contain libraries/headers at the same location. Once atkmm is built for rawhide, gtkmm24 can be updated and new version built against the external atkmm.
* Sat Jun 26 2010 Kalev Lember <kalev> - 2.21.1-2 - added missing Conflicts: gtkmm24-devel to -devel subpackage - calculate two-digit download directory from three-digit package version Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm-2.21.1-2.fc14.src.rpm
The Spec file is well-organized, only Requires: gtk-doc is controversial. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169 Recently, I noticed mclasen dropped this dependency in new review request, so I suggest you also drop Requires:gtk-doc before FPC's final decision on this issue.
If you are talking about gdk-pixbuf2, then I think that package is actually doing a wrong thing. Probably just an oversight, not something deliberate. gdk-pixbuf2 currently has: %files devel %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* ... and no dependency on gtk-doc. What matters for RPM directory handling is that every single directory has to be owned by something. If we put files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/*, then %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/ and %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/ need to be either owned by this package or something that it depends on, otherwise RPM will leave directories behind when it removes this package. In that FPC thread people were suggesting adding these directories to either gnome-filesystem, filesystem, gtk-doc-filesystem, or making every package co-own these directories. Until any of these *filesystem packages are introduced, we have two options: 1) depend on gtk-doc 2) co-own both directories. I think lets leave the gtk-doc dep as it is right now and wait for FPC decision. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and will update the package accordingly.
(In reply to comment #4) > If you are talking about gdk-pixbuf2, then I think that package is actually > doing a wrong thing. Probably just an oversight, not something deliberate. > > gdk-pixbuf2 currently has: > %files devel > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* > > ... and no dependency on gtk-doc. > > What matters for RPM directory handling is that every single directory has to > be owned by something. If we put files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/*, then > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/ and %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/ need to be either owned by > this package or something that it depends on, otherwise RPM will leave > directories behind when it removes this package. > Yep, those minor packaging bugs are very common, I can't see any consistency on treating those directory ownership issue. Even very core packages also have those issues. > In that FPC thread people were suggesting adding these directories to either > gnome-filesystem, filesystem, gtk-doc-filesystem, or making every package > co-own these directories. Until any of these *filesystem packages are > introduced, we have two options: > > 1) depend on gtk-doc > 2) co-own both directories. > > I think lets leave the gtk-doc dep as it is right now and wait for FPC > decision. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and will update the package > accordingly. The problem is those html files are irrelevant to gtk-doc, they are used by devhelp or firefox. Personally, I think adding irrelevant dependencies is also a packaging bug. So I suggest using 2) co-own both directories before FPC's decision.
Since atkmm-devel depends on atk-devel, I think you can drop Requres: gtk-doc safely, because atk-devel already has html docs in /usr/share/gtk-doc.
It's not a good idea to rely on atk-devel having Requres: gtk-doc. What if, for example, they move documentation to -doc subpackage and Requres: gtk-doc also moves over there? I feel it's more correct for atkmm-devel to directly depend on gtk-doc (or any other package providing these directories); it's not safe to rely on atk-devel to require the correct package. Anyway, perhaps we should take this to FPC mailing list instead. As you pointed out, since atk-devel already has gtk-doc dep, then dropping the dep only in atkmm-devel and leaving it in place for atk-devel will still pull in gtk-doc; this is something that needs to be fixed in every package in the distro.
* Wed Jun 30 2010 Kalev Lember <kalev> - 2.21.2-1 - Update to 2.21.2 Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/atkmm-2.21.2-1.fc14.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2282869
Chen, is the /usr/share/gtk-doc/ ownership issue a review blocker or can we go on with the review and fix up the package later when FPC decides which is the correct way to handle this?
(In reply to comment #9) > Chen, is the /usr/share/gtk-doc/ ownership issue a review blocker or can we go > on with the review and fix up the package later when FPC decides which is the > correct way to handle this? I don't think it's a blocker, either requires gtk-doc or own /usr/share/gtk-doc are fine, it looks like many packages also don't require gtk-doc and own /usr/share/gtk-doc/. This package is approved. formal review here: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this list and more] [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. <<md5sum checksum>>101918284ef37701b4508652180cf4c4 [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Thanks for the review, Chen! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: atkmm Short Description: C++ interface for the ATK library Owners: kalev rishi hguemar Branches: InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Built for rawhide, closing the ticket.