[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #24 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-09-25 07:22:41 EDT --- I'm sure this ticket may be closed now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-08-16 05:26:43 EDT --- Well, I guess this package is fine now. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #20 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-08-05 07:21:13 EDT --- ping again? Nils? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658
Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo? |
--- Comment #21 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2009-08-05 08:47:24
EDT ---
Sorry for the late response.
The xsane-0.997-3.fc12 package is building right now with the changes below.
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
Thanks for your effort, but I'll not use your patch because it's not very
readable (better use unified diffs: diff -u) and I want to discuss some
things:
Right. You could have generated an unified diff by patching a local copy of
the
spec file, though :)
Yuck ;-).
(In reply to comment #11)
- Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions,
I'd
suggest using off-root builds.
Later you said you had problems with that, what were these?
The automake stuff isn't configured properly. First of all, configure reads
some xsane. files (at least xsane.NEWS), so one needs to copy them to the
build
dir. After that things got even messier since it seemed that there were
problems with header files etc as well.
This could of course be overcome rather simply: do a manual setup of the build
tree by extracting the tarball twice into separate subdirs (gimp and nogimp)
where the builds can be made separately.
This of course doubles the size of the -debuginfo package (although I'm not
sure if debugging xsane-gimp is even possible now!).
Oh, I'd rather not have that ;-). It seems we need to fix the autofoo stuff in
the package to use off-root builds, but I guess this is out of scope for this
review anyway.
- No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and
is not
even supposed to be changed.
Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the
life of
the package. As this is a merge review, i.e. the package isn't new, I'll
leave
it as it is.
Yes, that's exactly my point. As there are only two instances where the macro
is used, I'd replace them both with fedora.
Now I understand you ;-). Fixed.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the
package
that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK
- Package must not own
%dir %{_datadir}/applications
which is a standard system directory.
- gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
fixed (-gimp subpackage already requires gimp)
Only in %post and %postun phases.
Fixed.
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK
- %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and
%{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and
xsane-gimp.
Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be
wiser
to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
to
xsane-gimp.
xsane and xsane-gimp can be installed independently, they both need the same
xsane-eula.txt file. I believe the rule you're hinting on means files listed
twice for the same package (e.g. twice in %files gimp)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files
listings. If you think your package is a valid exception to this, please bring
it to the attention of the Packaging Committee so they can improve on this
Guideline.
Now you have xsane-eula.txt and the directories listed twice. Of course, you
can get around this by putting xsane-eula.txt in %doc of the xsane-gimp
package.
No, I can't as xsane-gimp won't work properly without it in that exact location
;-). Anyway, I've moved the eula and documentation to a -common subpackage
which gets pulled in by both xsane and xsane-gimp.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK
- Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root).
The latter (which I use) is functionally equivalent to the former (which
isn't
mandatory either).
Hmm, the guideline at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
states:
Unless you have a very good reason to deviate from that, you should use
%defattr(-,root,root,-) for all %files sections in your package.
Please, just use the version of the guideline.
As I read the guideline I'm already compliant, because the one and the other
mean exactly the same thing. There is no tangible benefit from substituting the
short-hand version with the long-hand one other than the latter matches
verbatim what's written in the guideline.
--
Configure bugmail:
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #22 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-08-05 08:58:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) As I read the guideline I'm already compliant, because the one and the other mean exactly the same thing. There is no tangible benefit from substituting the short-hand version with the long-hand one other than the latter matches verbatim what's written in the guideline. Yeah, I discovered this only a while ago. No problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #19 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-07-10 08:57:48 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658
--- Comment #15 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2009-05-29 08:41:24
EDT ---
Thanks for your effort, but I'll not use your patch because it's not very
readable (better use unified diffs: diff -u) and I want to discuss some things:
(In reply to comment #11)
- Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions, I'd
suggest using off-root builds.
Later you said you had problems with that, what were these?
**
rpmlint output:
xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.CHANGES
xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.PROBLEMS
xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.INSTALL
xsane-gimp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
- You need to convert these to UTF-8 in the setup phase:
for doc in xsane.{CHANGES,PROBLEMS,INSTALL}; do
iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t utf8 $doc -o $doc.new \
touch -r $doc $doc.new \
mv $doc.new $doc
done
applied
- You don't need BR: sed, it is in the standard buildroot.
removed
- No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and is not
even supposed to be changed.
Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the life of
the package. As this is a merge review, i.e. the package isn't new, I'll leave
it as it is.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the
package
that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK
- Package must not own
%dir %{_datadir}/applications
which is a standard system directory.
- gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
fixed (-gimp subpackage already requires gimp)
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK
- %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and
%{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and xsane-gimp.
Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be
wiser
to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to
xsane-gimp.
xsane and xsane-gimp can be installed independently, they both need the same
xsane-eula.txt file. I believe the rule you're hinting on means files listed
twice for the same package (e.g. twice in %files gimp)
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK
- Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root).
The latter (which I use) is functionally equivalent to the former (which isn't
mandatory either).
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Remove unneeded files from doc (rm in setup or install phase): xsane.RPM,
xsane.conf, xsane.spec*, xsane.INSTALL, xsane.REMOVE
I've changed the file list to only include the other documentation files.
I've commited my changes to Rawhide CVS.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658
--- Comment #16 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-29 08:59:17
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Thanks for your effort, but I'll not use your patch because it's not very
readable (better use unified diffs: diff -u) and I want to discuss some
things:
Right. You could have generated an unified diff by patching a local copy of the
spec file, though :)
(In reply to comment #11)
- Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions, I'd
suggest using off-root builds.
Later you said you had problems with that, what were these?
The automake stuff isn't configured properly. First of all, configure reads
some xsane. files (at least xsane.NEWS), so one needs to copy them to the build
dir. After that things got even messier since it seemed that there were
problems with header files etc as well.
This could of course be overcome rather simply: do a manual setup of the build
tree by extracting the tarball twice into separate subdirs (gimp and nogimp)
where the builds can be made separately.
This of course doubles the size of the -debuginfo package (although I'm not
sure if debugging xsane-gimp is even possible now!).
- No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and is
not
even supposed to be changed.
Existing packages that use a vendor tag must continue to do so for the life
of
the package. As this is a merge review, i.e. the package isn't new, I'll
leave
it as it is.
Yes, that's exactly my point. As there are only two instances where the macro
is used, I'd replace them both with fedora.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the
package
that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK
- Package must not own
%dir %{_datadir}/applications
which is a standard system directory.
- gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
fixed (-gimp subpackage already requires gimp)
Only in %post and %postun phases.
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK
- %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and
%{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and
xsane-gimp.
Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be
wiser
to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to
xsane-gimp.
xsane and xsane-gimp can be installed independently, they both need the same
xsane-eula.txt file. I believe the rule you're hinting on means files listed
twice for the same package (e.g. twice in %files gimp)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings. If you think your package is a valid exception to this, please bring
it to the attention of the Packaging Committee so they can improve on this
Guideline.
Now you have xsane-eula.txt and the directories listed twice. Of course, you
can get around this by putting xsane-eula.txt in %doc of the xsane-gimp
package.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK
- Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root).
The latter (which I use) is functionally equivalent to the former (which isn't
mandatory either).
Hmm, the guideline at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
states:
Unless you have a very good reason to deviate from that, you should use
%defattr(-,root,root,-) for all %files sections in your package.
Please, just use the version of the guideline.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #18 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-29 09:02:37 EDT --- The defattr line of the gimp package should be changed too in the above patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #17 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-29 09:00:52 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=345904) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345904) Patch in unified mode -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-28 04:20:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Is this review stuck? I'm going to approve it in one week if nobody takes over. No, it is not stuck, since no-one has even done the review yet! Taking over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #10 from Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 2009-05-28 09:29:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #8) Is this review stuck? I'm going to approve it in one week if nobody takes over. No, it is not stuck, since no-one has even done the review yet! Well, Nils Philippsen did an initial review and the packager responded to it. Taking over. Sure, go on. This review has been stuck for way too long. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-28 09:34:41 EDT --- I'll make a patch for these issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658
--- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-28 09:34:10
EDT ---
- Instead of make clean'ing in between building the different versions, I'd
suggest using off-root builds.
**
rpmlint output:
xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.CHANGES
xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.PROBLEMS
xsane.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xsane-0.996/xsane.INSTALL
xsane-gimp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
- You need to convert these to UTF-8 in the setup phase:
for doc in xsane.{CHANGES,PROBLEMS,INSTALL}; do
iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t utf8 $doc -o $doc.new \
touch -r $doc $doc.new \
mv $doc.new $doc
done
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. ~OK
- You don't need BR: sed, it is in the standard buildroot.
- No need to define desktop_vendor as it is only used in two places and is not
even supposed to be changed.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. 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
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK
- Package must not own
%dir %{_datadir}/applications
which is a standard system directory.
- gimp package must Requires: gimp for dir ownership and not own
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK
- %{_datadir}/sane, %{_datadir}/sane/xsane and
%{_datadir}/sane/xsane/xsane-eula.txt are owned by both xsane and xsane-gimp.
Is there a good reason for this? If xsane-gimp needs those files, it'd be wiser
to let xsane own them and put a Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to
xsane-gimp.
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK
- Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root).
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Remove unneeded files from doc (rm in setup or install phase): xsane.RPM,
xsane.conf, xsane.spec*, xsane.INSTALL, xsane.REMOVE
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-28 10:01:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) Created an attachment (id=345764) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345764) [details] Patch against spec file in CVS This should fix every issue in the review. I tried the off-root build, however it didn't work as nicely as it should. Maybe it's easier and nicer to keep the build the way it is now. I did add the SMP flags to the build, though. Once you have committed the patch to CVS and built it in rawhide, I can check that everything is OK and approve the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-28 09:59:51 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=345764) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=345764) Patch against spec file in CVS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ber...@codewiz.org --- Comment #8 from Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 2009-03-18 06:28:40 EDT --- Is this review stuck? I'm going to approve it in one week if nobody takes over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-10 17:01:44 EDT --- Parag, is there any reason left to not approve this package and get it off the list of merge reviews ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 07:53 EST --- Sorry, I was a bit under water... I'm building xsane-0.994-3.fc7 right now which doesn't list the Application category for the desktop file anymore, please check. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:22 EST --- No response from maintainer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: xsane
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-30 11:31 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Just checked this package in Mock build environment and created patch to SPEC
-Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface.
+Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface
X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface
-Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-buildroot
+Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK
%package gimp
-Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface.
+Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface
GIMP plug-in providing the SANE scanner interface
%prep
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK
-%{_sysconfdir}/gimp
-%{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
-%config %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf
+%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp
+%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
+%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf
OK
* Mon Jul 26 1999 Tim Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- update to 0.30
-- added %defattr
+- added %%defattr
OK
Also you may need to add following line to SPEC for desktop-file-install
--remove-category Application \
Neccesary for warning coming in build.log
Please explain.
Then i even saw rpmlint output is not silent on RPM. It gave me
I: xsane checking
W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure
--with-install-root=%{buildroot}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will break short circuiting.
W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure
--with-install-root=%{buildroot}
--disable-gimp
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will break short circuiting.
I've removed --with-install-root=... from the configure calls (let's hope it
doesn't break anything).
Also Mock build.log is gave me following messages
acinclude.m4:8: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_GTK2
acinclude.m4:8: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal'
acinclude.m4:8: or see
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending-aclocal
m4/gettext.m4:60: the serial number must appear before any macro definition
m4/gettext.m4:83: the serial number must appear before any macro definition
AFAIK that's from other pkgs' files in /usr/share/aclocal.
AND
sed: can't read ./intl/po2tbl.sed.in: No such file or directory
I don't know about this one and why it happens.
Can you please look at these things?
hwbrowser-0.993-2 is building with the changes above.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-30 11:32 EST --- xsane-0.993-2 even ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-30 12:37 EST --- Also you may need to add following line to SPEC for desktop-file-install --remove-category Application \ Neccesary for warning coming in build.log Please explain. When you got your package built. Kindly check build.log. There you will see now Application word is no longer needed in .desktop files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: xsane
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-26 06:13 EST ---
Just checked this package in Mock build environment and created patch to SPEC
--- xsane.spec 2007-02-26 16:14:55.0 +0530
+++ xsane-modified.spec 2007-02-26 16:15:20.0 +0530
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
%define desktop_vendor fedora
Name: xsane
-Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface.
+Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface
Version: 0.991
Release: 4%{?dist}
Source0: http://www.xsane.org/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
License: GPL
URL: http://www.xsane.org/
Group: Applications/Multimedia
-Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-buildroot
+Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: sane-backends-devel gimp-devel libpng-devel libjpeg-devel
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils = 0.2.92
BuildRequires: libtiff-devel
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
performing the scan and then manipulating the captured image.
%package gimp
-Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface.
+Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface
Group: Applications/Multimedia
Requires(post): gimp = 2:2.2.12-4
Requires(preun): gimp = 2:2.2.12-4
@@ -41,7 +41,6 @@
installed to use this package.
%prep
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
%setup -q
%patch0 -p1 -b .htmlview
%patch1 -p1 -b .medium-definitions
@@ -100,9 +99,9 @@
%dir %{_datadir}/sane
%dir %{_datadir}/sane/xsane
%{_datadir}/sane/xsane/*eula*
-%{_sysconfdir}/gimp
-%{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
-%config %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf
+%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp
+%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d
+%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf
%post gimp
if [ -x %{_sbindir}/gimp-plugin-mgr ]; then
@@ -372,7 +371,7 @@
* Mon Jul 26 1999 Tim Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- update to 0.30
-- added %defattr
+- added %%defattr
- built for 6.1
* Thu Apr 22 1999 Preston Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Also you may need to add following line to SPEC for desktop-file-install
--remove-category Application \
Neccesary for warning coming in build.log
Then i even saw rpmlint output is not silent on RPM. It gave me
I: xsane checking
W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --with-install-root=%{buildroot}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will break short circuiting.
W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --with-install-root=%{buildroot}
--disable-gimp
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will break short circuiting.
Also Mock build.log is gave me following messages
acinclude.m4:8: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_GTK2
acinclude.m4:8: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal'
acinclude.m4:8: or see
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending-aclocal
m4/gettext.m4:60: the serial number must appear before any macro definition
m4/gettext.m4:83: the serial number must appear before any macro definition
AND
sed: can't read ./intl/po2tbl.sed.in: No such file or directory
Can you please look at these things?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
