Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The zathura-pdf-poppler plugin adds PDF support to zathura by using the poppler rendering engine Fedora Account System Username: fcami
Notes: to build zathura-pdf-poppler, please install zathura-devel-0.2.1 first.
Fix BuildRequires. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-0.2.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
zathura-devel-0.2.1 should be available in updates-testing for all currently supported Fedora releases.
Sorry, wrong url for the SRPM. SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
Hi François. Just some comments from a inexpert packager. :) - %clean section should be omitted from Fedora 13 and above (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean) even if I see it included frequently. - %defattr(-,root,root,-) should be also omitted http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
(In reply to comment #5) > Hi François. > > Just some comments from a inexpert packager. :) > > - %clean section should be omitted from Fedora 13 and above > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean) even if I see > it included frequently. > > - %defattr(-,root,root,-) should be also omitted > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions Antonio, From what I see, François want to build in EPEL5, so these guidelines do not apply here. François please confirms if you want to build your package in EPEL5. Issues: - you using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, please use consistently RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Hi François. > > > > Just some comments from a inexpert packager. :) > > > > - %clean section should be omitted from Fedora 13 and above > > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean) even if I see > > it included frequently. > > > > - %defattr(-,root,root,-) should be also omitted > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions > > Antonio, From what I see, François want to build in EPEL5, so these > guidelines do not apply here. > > François please confirms if you want to build your package in EPEL5. > > Issues: > - you using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, please use consistently > RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros Hi Eduardo. His source rpm is for Fedora 16. If it was for EPEL5, then it should be packaged as el5 ... This leads me to think to Fedora packaging rules. :)
(In reply to comment #7) > Hi Eduardo. > > His source rpm is for Fedora 16. If it was for EPEL5, then it should be > packaged as el5 ... > This leads me to think to Fedora packaging rules. :) Hi Antonio, not necessarily, remember that if you don't have a specific release of fedora to build, not mean you can not offer the package for different branches, mock or koji, takes care of that. look in /etc/mock the available configurations, You'll get output like this: echevemaster@echevemaster mock$ ls default.cfg fedora-17-i386.cfg fedora-5-x86_64-epel.cfg epel-5-i386.cfg fedora-17-ppc64.cfg fedora-devel-i386.cfg epel-5-ppc.cfg fedora-17-ppc.cfg fedora-devel-ppc64.cfg epel-5-x86_64.cfg fedora-17-s390.cfg fedora-devel-ppc.cfg epel-6-i386.cfg fedora-17-s390x.cfg fedora-devel-x86_64.cfg epel-6-ppc64.cfg fedora-17-sparc64.cfg fedora-rawhide-arm.cfg epel-6-x86_64.cfg fedora-17-sparc.cfg fedora-rawhide-armhfp.cfg fedora-16-arm.cfg fedora-17-x86_64.cfg fedora-rawhide-i386.cfg fedora-16-i386.cfg fedora-18-arm.cfg fedora-rawhide-ppc64.cfg fedora-16-ppc64.cfg fedora-18-armhfp.cfg fedora-rawhide-ppc.cfg fedora-16-ppc.cfg fedora-18-i386.cfg fedora-rawhide-s390.cfg fedora-16-s390.cfg fedora-18-ppc64.cfg fedora-rawhide-s390x.cfg fedora-16-s390x.cfg fedora-18-ppc.cfg fedora-rawhide-sparc64.cfg fedora-16-sparc64.cfg fedora-18-s390.cfg fedora-rawhide-sparc.cfg fedora-16-sparc.cfg fedora-18-s390x.cfg fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg fedora-16-x86_64.cfg fedora-18-x86_64.cfg logging.ini fedora-17-arm.cfg fedora-5-i386-epel.cfg site-defaults.cfg fedora-17-armhfp.cfg fedora-5-ppc-epel.cfg or just do a scratch build koji build --scratch dist-5E-epel foo.rpm Moreover, how recognize that probably a packager wants to offer its package on EPEL5 ? - Buildroot is present BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is present at the beginning of %install - %clean section is present Although it is always good to ask what are intentions of packager. François I'm sorry for the flood, But I thought it necessary to explain this to Antonio
Thanks for the comments. I've removed all pre-EL6 stuff now. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-3.fc16.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #9) > Thanks for the comments. I've removed all pre-EL6 stuff now. > Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec > SRPM URL: > http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-3.fc16.src.rpm Distribution specific guidelines are not different than Fedora ones at this moment. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines If it is so, then BuildRoot tag can be omitted https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag I think, also the BuildRequires entries can be listed one-by-one: BuildRequires: poppler-glib-devel BuildRequires: zathura-devel >= 0.2.1 @Eduardo I'm learning about packaging and I wish to do an informal review of this package. Can I do it ? :)
Antonio: please do :)
Antonio is right François If you do not want to offer your package to EPEL5, please remove: - BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > @Eduardo > > I'm learning about packaging and I wish to do an informal review of this > package. > Can I do it ? :) Antonio will probably give you an error when running fedora-review because zathura-devel-0.2.1 is available in updates-testing Please run: fedora-review -b 881431 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Really remove EL5 specific stuff. Thanks. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc16.src.rpm
Hi François The .so warning is about the libraries being unversioned, but this are private libs, Since you don't install them in ld path, this is OK. Tested on koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749452 Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/zp/881431-zathura-pdf- poppler/licensecheck.txt * the package is licensed under zlib [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm zathura-pdf-poppler-debuginfo-0.2.1-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint zathura-pdf-poppler-debuginfo zathura-pdf-poppler 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- zathura-pdf-poppler-debuginfo-0.2.1-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgirara-gtk2.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpoppler-glib.so.8()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- zathura-pdf-poppler-debuginfo-0.2.1-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm: zathura-pdf-poppler-debuginfo = 0.2.1-4.fc19 zathura-pdf-poppler-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.2.1-4.fc19 zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm: pdf.so()(64bit) zathura-pdf-poppler = 0.2.1-4.fc19 zathura-pdf-poppler(x86-64) = 0.2.1-4.fc19 Unversioned so-files -------------------- zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/zathura/pdf.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://pwmt.org/projects/zathura/plugins/download/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c162ea887e52f48d6dc80f8427a773768f2df2e37242dab7efddeb3d2e361cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c162ea887e52f48d6dc80f8427a773768f2df2e37242dab7efddeb3d2e361cd I don't see anymore blockers, therefore ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Thank you Eduardo.
>[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/makerpm/zp/881431-zathura-pdf- > poppler/licensecheck.txt > > * the package is licensed under zlib Eduardo, I didn't see the license file. How you can see under which license this software is released ?
Antonio, it should be in the RPM: $ rpm -qlp zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/zathura/pdf.so /usr/share/doc/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1 /usr/share/doc/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1/LICENSE
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: zathura-pdf-poppler Short Description: PDF support for zathura via poppler Owners: fcami psabata Branches: f18 f17 f16 el6 InitialCC:
(In reply to comment #17) > Eduardo, I didn't see the license file. How you can see under which license > this software is released ? run: licensecheck LICENSE the output is: LICENSE: zlib/libpng
(In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #17) > > > Eduardo, I didn't see the license file. How you can see under which license > > this software is released ? > > run: > licensecheck LICENSE > > the output is: > > LICENSE: zlib/libpng Ok, thank you.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc18,zathura-ps-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc18,zathura-ps-0.2.0-2.fc18
zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc18, zathura-ps-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc18, zathura-ps-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.