Spec URL: http://people.gnome.org/~icq/gedit-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: Description: gedit collaboration plugin for gedit using libinfinity 0.5 See that we are missing libinfinity 0.5, I didn't make the update for it as I don't know if we want it parallel installable or just an update of the libinfinity 0.4
I guess the following lines are not necessary: > Requires: gedit > Requires: libinfinity > Requires: libinfinity-gtk As long as gedit-collaboration links to libgedit-private.so. Rpmbuild should automatically find required libraries and put them in Requires in final rpm packages. FYI, I've just built libinfinity-0.5.0-1.fc15 with gtk3 support.
Created attachment 489990 [details] Updated spec file * removed unneeded Requires (see above) * added calls to glib-compile-schemas * fixed language detection * fixed filelist, own the /usr/share/gedit/plugins/collaboration directory * added missing %prep section Couldn't test build in koji since libinfinity-devel >= 0.5.0 is not yet available in the buildroot. Also, when building locally, I get this error: > + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id /tmp/t/F-12/gedit-collaboration-2.91.1 > extracting debug info from /data/work/rpm/BUILDROOT/gedit-collaboration-2.91.1-1.fc12.x86_64/usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/libcollaboration.so > Dest dir longer than base dir is not supported > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZnsVa6 (%install) But it could be only a path length limit on my system.
Tested build in koji, compiles fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2993057 rpmlint says: gedit-collaboration.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://project.gnome.org/gedit <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> -- do we have better URL? other than git repo?
Created attachment 491244 [details] Updated spec file * Corrected license (GPLv3)
Package review: > MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK, apart from the errors posted above, no further issues reported > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK > MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK > MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK, GPLv3 as stated in COPYING. Sources don't have license header except of gedit-collaboration-plugin.c which states GPLv2+ > 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.[4] OK > MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK, looks that way. > MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK, formatting is fine > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK, verified > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK, tested in koji, see above > 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK, none needed. > MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK, checked. > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden OK, macro used. > 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. Libraries present but not in ld search paths, these are private to gedit and loaded in runtime. > MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK > MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK, none > 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. OK > MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK > 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. OK > MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK > MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK, no extra docs. > MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK > MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK, none > MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK, none > MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK, again libraries are private to gedit and are not versioned > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} OK, none > MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK, removed > 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK, not needed. > MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK > MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK
It works perfect for me :)
Looks good to me
Spec URL: http://tbzatek.fedorapeople.org/gedit-collaboration/gedit-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: http://tbzatek.fedorapeople.org/gedit-collaboration/gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Collaboration plugin for gedit Updated spec file to latest upstream release, fixed po files paths. (In reply to comment #7) > Looks good to me May I ask you for a formal package review please? I did something above but since I rewrote most of the original spec file, I'm not sure if it's politically correct to act as a reviewer.
Package review: > MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] $ rpmlint gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm gedit-collaboration.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://project.gnome.org/gedit <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The correct URL is http://projects.gnome.org/gedit > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK > MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK > MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK, GPLv3 as stated in COPYING. Sources don't have license header except of gedit-collaboration-plugin.c which states GPLv2+ > 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.[4] OK > MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK > MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK, tested in koji > 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK > MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden OK > 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. Ok, Libraries present but not in ld search paths as these are dynamic loaded plugins > MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK > MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK, none > 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. OK > MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK > 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. OK > MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK > MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK, no extra docs. > MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK > MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A > MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A > MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK, libraries are plugins and are not versioned > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} N/A > MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK, removed > 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. N/A > MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK > MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK
(In reply to comment #9) > The correct URL is http://projects.gnome.org/gedit Corrected. Thank you very much for the review! -------------- Updated files: Spec URL: http://tbzatek.fedorapeople.org/gedit-collaboration/gedit-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: http://tbzatek.fedorapeople.org/gedit-collaboration/gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Collaboration plugin for gedit
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gedit-collaboration Short Description: Collaboration plugin for gedit Owners: nacho tbzatek Branches: f15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks, successfully built gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc16 and gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc15 in koji.
gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc15
gedit-collaboration-3.0.0-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.