Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Description of problem: We need a clutter-gtk3 package; the 0.10 series was targeting GTK2, and it's a bad idea to just switch it to gtk3 wholesale. This will be exactly identical to the current git contents of the clutter-gtk package: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=clutter-gtk.git;a=tree
Created attachment 451716 [details] patch to flip current clutter-gtk back to 0.10
Note that they are designed upstream for parallel installation; they have different .pc file names, different sonames, The only remaining upstream bug is they both install to /usr/share/gtk-doc/clutter-gtk (which I'll fix upstream).
Can you provide a clutter-gtk3 spec file / srpm ? then we can get the package review done.
(In reply to comment #3) > Can you provide a clutter-gtk3 spec file / srpm ? > then we can get the package review done. The files are exactly identical to what's there in Fedora git right now.
No, they aren't. For one, the name is different. If you want to get a package review, play by the package review rules. Package review is all about following rules...
Created attachment 451938 [details] spec
Created attachment 451939 [details] srpm
(In reply to comment #5) > No, they aren't. For one, the name is different. If you want to get a package > review, play by the package review rules. Package review is all about following > rules... Well, identical modulo all the duplicative goop that spec files require I guess. There's certainly no actually interesting changes here.
Doesn't build in mock: + /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/clutter-gtk-0.90.2.tar.bz2 + /bin/tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd clutter-gtk3-0.90.2 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IX6xGD: line 38: cd: clutter-gtk3-0.90.2: No such file or directory I think you probably typoed, and wanted to package version 0.91.2 ?
Created attachment 452209 [details] srpm
Builds on x86_64 rawhide right now for me: INFO: Done(/home/walters/clutter-gtk3-0.91.2-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(fedora-devel-x86_64) 6 minutes 16 seconds
Builds in mock. rpmlint output: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm clutter-gtk3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gtd, gt k clutter-gtk3.src: W: no-buildroot-tag clutter-gtk3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.clutter-project.org/sources/clutter-gtk3/1.0/clutter-gtk-0.91.2.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found clutter-gtk3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gtd, gt k clutter-gtk3-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gtk -> gt, gtd, gt k clutter-gtk3-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gtd, gt k 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. The only thing that should be fixed here is the Source url. The correct location is http://source.clutter-project.org/sources/clutter-gtk/0.91/clutter-gtk-0.91.2.tar.bz2
package name: ok, considering established practice for parallel-installable library versions spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: - buildroot cleaning in %install no longer necessary - %clean no longer necessary - this is a new package, it shouldn't inherit %changelog from clutter-gtk license: ok license file: ok license field: says lgpl, but COPYING is gpl. What gives ? spec language: ok spec readable: ok upstream sources: ok buildable: ok excludearch: ok buildrequires: ok locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok system libs: ok relocatable: ok dir ownership: ok duplicate files: ok file permissions: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok headers: ok static libs: ok shared libs: ok -devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: ok directory ownership: ok utf8 filenames: all ascii Aside: This allows clutter to be embedded in GTK applications. We hope with further work in the future clutter-gtk will also allow the reverse, namely embedding GTK in Clutter I think the second sentence is not really useful in a package description. Summary: Clutter-gtk development environment Do we capitalize package names in summaries ? Header files and libraries for building a extension library for the clutter-gtk Sounds like an incomplete sentence: for the clutter-gtk ... library ? Also shouldn't it say something more like 'Header files and libraries for developing software that uses clutter-gtk.' ? Summary: - fix the source location - clarify the license situation - consider some of the packaging guideline cleanups - drop old changelogs - maybe review some of the descriptive text
Created attachment 452413 [details] updated srpm Fixes source url and a few misc things
You didn't want to throw out %clean ? Fine with me. Please give the descriptive texts a once-over though. I'd appreciate if you spell GTK+ like that, with the +. And the descriptions should be complete sentences. License still needs clarification.
I did remove %clean, no? I pinged upstream about the License, I think it's pretty obviously intended to be LGPL. As soon as the module is created, and the git repository made (so I can go on and actually commit fixes for things) I'll file a bug about this. As far as the description, for libraries, I'm not going to expend too much effort on re-describing what the website already says. The descriptions are basically just for keyword hits in "yum search". I did change GTK -> GTK+.
Created attachment 452416 [details] updated srpm
we have http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process for how to report new package and template https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-review for reporting new package review.
Looks ok now. Approved.
any progress here?
This should be closed as it looks dead review now as no progress here since more than one month.
Looks FE-DEADREVIEW now.
Possibly we can just switch everything over to GTK3 now.
removing this review from my tracker.
Closing as WONTFIX for now.