Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-djvu.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The zathura-djvu plugin adds DjVu support to zathura by using the djvulibre library. Fedora Account System Username: fcami
Built in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4830093 Tested against bill_of_lading.djvu sharperimage.djvu ye000009.djvu from http://www.caminova.net/en/products/?src=djvu_sample.aspx
Hi François: Any reason for djvulibre-devel is equal to or greater than 3.5.25.3? I ask because I do not see any mention of specific version in the tarball if we use repoquery, we have the following output: repoquery -qf --whatprovides --releasever=17 djvulibre-devel djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-5.fc17.x86_64 djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-5.fc17.i686 djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-3.fc17.i686 djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-3.fc17.x86_64 djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-5.fc17.x86_64 djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-5.fc17.i686 djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-3.fc17.i686 djvulibre-devel-0:3.5.24-3.fc17.x86_64 That means that if you plan to ship for f17, you can't Although it is in updates-testing since October. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15651/djvulibre-3.5.25.3-1.fc17 Could you explain me prior to the formal review? thanks for advance
Hi Eduardo, It won't compile against djvulibre < 3.5.25. I opened bug 882715 to ask djvulibre's maintainer to push the update to f16 a while ago. My plan for f17 is to ask releng for a buildroot override (I can't do it myself since I do not own djvulibre) to be able to build zathura-djvu and push it to updates-testing. Thank you.
It's really just missing stddef.h? Then it would be a more convenient work-around to apply the patch to zathura-djvu where it uses the djvulibre headers: page-text.h
Thanks for the suggestion Michael. I'll do that on the f17 branch once the package is approved. Eduardo, can you review zathura-djvu as it is?
Created attachment 671841 [details] Alternate spec
Created attachment 671842 [details] use stdlib.h in zathura-djvu
Created attachment 671843 [details] Djvu install patch
(In reply to comment #4) > It's really just missing stddef.h? Then it would be a more convenient > work-around to apply the patch to zathura-djvu where it uses the djvulibre > headers: page-text.h Thanks for the catch Michael Hi François, I made a potential patch that can help in building on f17 and f16, please test the package in mock and let me know if everything is OK https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds#Building_packages_that_depend_on_packages_not_in_a_repository size_t is defined in stddef.h header but also in stdlib.h, so I have based on it to make the patch Best Regards
> size_t is defined in stddef.h header but also in stdlib.h stdlib.h includes stddef.h ;) For a temporary work-around such a detail doesn't really matter, though.
Updated .spec and srpm: Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-djvu.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm Builds in mock: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849100 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849124 Thanks to you both.
(In reply to comment #11) > Builds in mock: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849100 > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849124 > Thanks to you both. You're welcome. - 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. - The warnings about the spelling errors can be ignored - zathura-djvu.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) Please fix these cosmetics errors, before importing Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [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. x86 & x86_64 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849124 [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. [x]: 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/djvu/891125-zathura-djvu/licensecheck.txt * in the file LICENSE, you can see that the license is under zlib * Similarly, it is verifiable with the licensecheck command [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. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm zathura-djvu-debuginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17.src.rpm zathura-djvu.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US djvulibre -> Libreville zathura-djvu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US djvulibre -> Libreville zathura-djvu.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint zathura-djvu zathura-djvu-debuginfo zathura-djvu.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US djvulibre -> Libreville 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdjvulibre.so.21()(64bit) libgirara-gtk2.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) zathura-djvu-debuginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm: djvu.so()(64bit) zathura-djvu = 0.2.1-2.fc17 zathura-djvu(x86-64) = 0.2.1-2.fc17 zathura-djvu-debuginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm: zathura-djvu-debuginfo = 0.2.1-2.fc17 zathura-djvu-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.2.1-2.fc17 Unversioned so-files -------------------- zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/zathura/djvu.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://pwmt.org/projects/zathura/plugins/download/zathura-djvu-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d8bb3c9e30244a0733e49740ee2dd099ce39fa16f2c320af27a0c09d9a25bcc3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d8bb3c9e30244a0733e49740ee2dd099ce39fa16f2c320af27a0c09d9a25bcc3 I don't see anymore blockers, therefore ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Thank you!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: zathura-djvu Short Description: DjVu support for zathura Owners: fcami psabata Branches: f18 f17 f16 el6 InitialCC:
I re-set the review flag. It seems that you chose the incorrect :)
Git done (by process-git-requests).
zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17
zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc18
zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc16
zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.