Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~anujmore/pkgs/gnome-font-viewer.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~anujmore/pkgs/gnome-font-viewer-126.96.36.199-0.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Use gnome-font-viewer, the Font Viewer, to preview fonts and display
information about a specified font. You can use the Font Viewer to display the
name, style, type, size, version, and copyright of the font.
To browse the fonts installed on your system, open a file manager window and
enter the following URI in the location: fonts:///
Double-click on an icon to display a preview of the font.
And builds successfully on koji:
Requires glib2-devel-2.31.0 to configure, and since the latest glib2-devel in stable is 2.30.1, this will run only on rawhide.
License is GPLv2+. The FSF address is wrong. Feel free to correct it and ask upstream to also do so.
The description is not a manual. I suggest to remove the second paragraph.
You can use the name and version macro for Source. Some people are opposed to using the name macro there though.
%doc is usually right underneath %files.
ABOUT-NLS has nothing to do with this package, I think.
The changelog should depict what you changed in packaging.
Rpmlint says, you're mixing spaces and tabs on line 8. Rpmlint also complains about your file not having a changelog entry, although it has one. Try to find out why that happens. I haven't seen that before.
You can also shorten the BuildRequires a bit:
For instance, GConf2-devel requires glib2-devel.
any further updates here?
@Volker: I will upload those changes right away.
@Parag: I am almost there.
Exam season :/
I have an exam tomorrow, which means I should upload the changes by ~2000 IST.
Source RPM: http://anujmore.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/gnome-font-viewer-188.8.131.52-2.fc16.src.rpm
Spec file: http://anujmore.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/gnome-font-viewer.spec
Builds successfully on mock for rawhide, koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3569834
You forgot to change the license and to remove ABOUT-NLS.
And as I said, the version macro would fit fine for Source.
The changelog should be a bit more accurate to be useful, because removing something from BR is not a "change in format".
Please remove the comma in front of "and copyright". I personally think, the description could be worded simpler, but that won't block the review.
The compiler doesn't use Fedora's flags: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
any updates here?
Thank you for starting this Anuj! I took the liberty of updating the spec file. Review is very welcome.
I had a hard time with my Fedora VM install, and any help (with the package) is appreciated.
There's also this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754191 which is more than half done.
Updated to 3.4.0
Doesn't build on Fedora 16 64 Bit:
checking for FONTVIEW... no
configure: error: Package requirements (freetype2
gio-2.0 >= 2.31.0
glib-2.0 >= 2.31.0
gtk+-3.0 >= 3.0.0) were not met:
Requested 'gio-2.0 >= 2.31.0' but version of GIO is 2.30.2
Requested 'glib-2.0 >= 2.31.0' but version of GLib is 2.30.2
Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
installed software in a non-standard prefix.
Alternatively, you may set the environment variables FONTVIEW_CFLAGS
and FONTVIEW_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config.
See the pkg-config man page for more details.
(In reply to comment #12)
> Doesn't build on Fedora 16 64 Bit:
> checking for FONTVIEW... no
> configure: error: Package requirements (freetype2
> gio-2.0 >= 2.31.0
> glib-2.0 >= 2.31.0
> gtk+-3.0 >= 3.0.0) were not met:
> Requested 'gio-2.0 >= 2.31.0' but version of GIO is 2.30.2
> Requested 'glib-2.0 >= 2.31.0' but version of GLib is 2.30.2
This new package isn't intended to be available in Fedora 16 and below. For such versions, gnome-font-viewer is already provided in Fedora <= 16 in the gnome-utils package.
All these requirements for gnome-font-viewer are satisfied in Fedora 17.
The former gnome-utils tarball was splitted for GNOME 3.4 in new subprojects, such as baobab, gnome-search-tool... And gnome-font-viewer.
Rui Matos: thanks for the update, it's a good job. Don't forget anyway that AnujMore is still the submitter for this package. But I'm sure he will take advantage of your work to complete this review at last.
I see! That wasn't obvious from the request.
Hey guys, I'd like to help get this moving again.
Rui: I see you've raised the fedora‑review? flag. In Fedora package review process, the setting it to "?" means that the person raising the flag is currently reviewing the spec file.
However, you're the one who uploaded the spec file and you can't review your own work. I think it'd be better if you open a new ticket with your work (so that you are listed as the submitter) and mark this one as a duplicate.
I'd then be able to review the new package so that we can finally get it included in Fedora.
(In reply to comment #15)
> I think it'd be better if you open a new ticket with your work (so
> that you are listed as the submitter) and mark this one as a duplicate.
It wouldn't be fair to close arbitrarily this review if AnujMore hasn't expressely gave it up. And according to the guidelines, this review is not yet considered to be stalled:
Ready to give this up.
Rui is doing considerable work on this, and (as previously mentioned) I am not having a proper Fedora install around me. I don't mind giving this package to him :)
Thank you for you reply Anuj.
Rui, I've just reopen your review request, I'm closing then this one.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 807662 ***