https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Bug ID: 2362370 Summary: Review Request: marker - GTK 3 markdown editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lihis@lihis.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/Lihis/marker/raw/branch/rawhide/marker.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1560/131981560/marker-0.0.202... Description: Marker is a markdown editor for Linux made with Gtk+-3.0. Fedora Account System Username: lihis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |Unretirement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/fabiocol | |acio/Marker
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8968031 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND LicenseRef-Callaway-CC-BY-SA AND ISC AND LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD AND Apache-2.0 AND LicenseRef-Callaway-MIT AND CC0-1.0 AND LicenseRef-Callaway-OFL AND Zlib'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/marker Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicti...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Sergio Basto sergio@serjux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged CC| |sergio@serjux.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Sergio Basto sergio@serjux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #2 from Sergio Basto sergio@serjux.com --- license-validate "GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND LicenseRef-Callaway-CC-BY-SA AND ISC AND LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD AND Apache-2.0 AND LicenseRef-Callaway-MIT AND CC0-1.0 AND LicenseRef-Callaway-OFL AND Zlib"
license-validate not validate these ones [1] , I going to ask to legal mailing list
[1] LicenseRef-Callaway-CC-BY-SA, LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD , LicenseRef-Callaway-MIT , LicenseRef-Callaway-OFL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #3 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Thanks for the info!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- It looks like the license tag before retirement was just auto-converted to SPDX:
# Automatically converted from old format: GPLv3+ and GPLv2 and LGPLv3+ and CC-BY-SA and ISC and BSD and ASL 2.0 and MIT and CC0 and OFL and zlib - review is highly recommended. License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND LicenseRef-Callaway-CC-BY-SA AND ISC AND LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD AND Apache-2.0 AND LicenseRef-Callaway-MIT AND CC0-1.0 AND LicenseRef-Callaway-OFL AND Zlib
This is not acceptable for "new" packages though. Given that the license breakdown is already well documented in the spec file, it should be straightforward to actually replace LicenseRef-* identifiers with the correct respective SPDX identifiers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #5 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Alright, yeah this is un-retirement but I took this as a chance to go review it. Update spec and SRPM following..
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #6 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/Lihis/marker/raw/branch/rawhide/marker.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5035/132005035/marker-0.0.202...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Sergio Basto sergio@serjux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #7 from Sergio Basto sergio@serjux.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #8 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #9 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Is there some issue with the review service?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2087782 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2087782&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8968031 to 8980676
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8980676 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/marker Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicti...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Amazing tool! Exactly what I wanted.
I'll review it shortly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- * Please ensure ownersip of /usr/lib/Marker.extensions directory. See below. * Versioning should be just 2023.05.02 I believe.
Apart from that LGTM. I really don't see any blocking issues so here is my formal
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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 %license. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
^^^ We have 3 more LICENSE files from Source[123]. Consider packing them as well. NOT A BLOCKER.
- Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/marker See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
^^^ That's ok. This Review request is actually a Re-Review.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
^^^ Acknowledged in the spec-file. WiP.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/Marker.extensions. See my note above. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/lib/Marker.extensions, /usr/share/help/C. Looks like nobody wants to own /usr/share/help/*/. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!/?]: Package contains plenty of bundled libraries. Unfortunately this should be fixed upstream. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [0]: No development files. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package does not fully obey FHS. Acknowledged in the spec-file. WiP. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8245 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Please, avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Work with upstream on that. [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: 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. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL)
^^^ false positive.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1208320 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: marker-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.x86_64.rpm marker-data-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.noarch.rpm marker-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplybwbz53')] checks: 32, packages: 3
marker.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 68% marker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary marker marker-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: marker-debuginfo-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9n7w8wkj')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
marker.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 68% marker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary marker marker-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- marker: /usr/lib/Marker.extensions/libscroll-extension.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/codeplea/tinyexpr/archive/9476568b69de4c384903f1d5f255907... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c0c9496d9e9b693ae364860f0b66c403b87337db1b5a78275a0c78a07495286 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c0c9496d9e9b693ae364860f0b66c403b87337db1b5a78275a0c78a07495286 https://github.com/Mandarancio/charter/archive/a25dee1214ea9ba5882325066555c... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60237a813383b44891e57049ba1f86cc5b89c28eee620b6ee90582a0c7ba6f8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60237a813383b44891e57049ba1f86cc5b89c28eee620b6ee90582a0c7ba6f8a https://github.com/Mandarancio/scidown/archive/a7b7f063de4f272ef0ec12d00b984... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 31e63658e2e79b5c5b0497d568e548f177fc89cb1dd9b6d78aba7685f0506ff0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31e63658e2e79b5c5b0497d568e548f177fc89cb1dd9b6d78aba7685f0506ff0 https://github.com/fabiocolacio/Marker/archive/2023.05.02/marker-2023.05.02.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 097a6e3811f0c4c14c574b8aafee27ee62232ae3ad3084e18a35c2dc8a1e93dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 097a6e3811f0c4c14c574b8aafee27ee62232ae3ad3084e18a35c2dc8a1e93dd
Requires -------- marker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libgtkspell3-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libwebkit2gtk-4.1.so.0()(64bit) marker-data rtld(GNU_HASH)
marker-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): marker
Provides -------- marker: application() application(com.github.fabiocolacio.marker.desktop) bundled(asana-math-fonts) bundled(gyre-pagella-fonts) bundled(gyre-termes-fonts) bundled(highlight-js) bundled(katex) bundled(katex-fonts) bundled(latin-modern-fonts) bundled(mathjax) bundled(neo-euler-fonts) bundled(scidown) bundled(stix-web-fonts) bundled(tex-fonts) libscroll-extension.so()(64bit) marker marker(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(com.github.fabiocolacio.marker.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/x-markdown)
marker-data: marker-data
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2362370-marker/srpm/marker.spec 2025-05-03 11:55:34.141955332 +0200 +++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2362370-marker/srpm-unpacked/marker.spec 2025-04-26 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 10; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global uuid com.github.fabiocolacio.%{name} %global vergit 2023.05.02 @@ -172,3 +182,47 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Apr 26 2025 Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net - 0.0.2023.05.02-10 +- Fix license + +* Fri Apr 25 2025 Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net - 0.0.2023.05.02-9 +- Fix FTBFS + +* Thu Jul 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering releng@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.2020.04.04-7 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild + +* Thu Jan 20 2022 Fedora Release Engineering releng@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.2020.04.04-6 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild + +* Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering releng@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.2020.04.04-5 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild + +* Tue Jan 26 2021 Fedora Release Engineering releng@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.2020.04.04-4 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild + +* Wed Sep 2 2020 Artem Polishchuk ego.cordatus@gmail.com - 0.0.2020.04.04-3 +- Remove old LTO macros + +* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering releng@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.2020.04.04-2 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sat Apr 04 2020 Artem Polishchuk ego.cordatus@gmail.com - 0.0.2020.04.04-1 +- Update to 2020.04.04 + +* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering releng@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.2019.11.06-6 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sat Jan 04 2020 Artem Polishchuk ego.cordatus@gmail.com - 2019.11.06-5 +- Switch to release tarballs +- Provides all bundled components + +* Tue Dec 10 2019 Artem Polishchuk ego.cordatus@gmail.com - 2019.11.06-1.20191210git49a7e14 +- Update to 2019.11.06 + +* Tue Apr 30 2019 Artem Polishchuk ego.cordatus@gmail.com - 2018.07.03-1.20190430gitc0f8c7e +- Update to latest snapshot + +* Fri Apr 05 2019 Artem Polishchuk ego.cordatus@gmail.com - 2018.07.03-3.20190227gited56a04 +- Initial package + +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2362370 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Please, comment/address my notes above and we'll finish this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(lemenkov@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #15 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net ---
Amazing tool! Exactly what I wanted.
Yes, I wish I would have noticed the retirement earlier! Also apostrophe was retired, it would be in GNOME Circle but the reason for retirement made Marker better candidate (also being written in C so I find it more suitable for me to maintain).
Please, comment/address my notes above and we'll finish this.
I admit that I just reverted the retirement commit and fixed the FTBFS and glanced through of the spec.
Please ensure ownersip of /usr/lib/Marker.extensions directory
Done: https://codeberg.org/Lihis/marker/commit/a6ae37e7f76a58812029f63a679bcfa138f...
Versioning should be just 2023.05.02 I believe.
Latest release at GitHub is just `2023.05.02` so yes, it should: https://codeberg.org/Lihis/marker/commit/4495f7bf0ccf4bb41c620730fa929b78435...
We have 3 more LICENSE files from Source[123]. Consider packing them as well. NOT A BLOCKER.
How this should be handled? Just `cp` the licenses to `%{_licensedir}/marker/`?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lemenkov@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #16 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- (In reply to Tomi Lähteenmäki from comment #15)
Amazing tool! Exactly what I wanted.
Yes, I wish I would have noticed the retirement earlier! Also apostrophe was retired, it would be in GNOME Circle but the reason for retirement made Marker better candidate (also being written in C so I find it more suitable for me to maintain).
Please, comment/address my notes above and we'll finish this.
I admit that I just reverted the retirement commit and fixed the FTBFS and glanced through of the spec.
Please ensure ownersip of /usr/lib/Marker.extensions directory
Done: https://codeberg.org/Lihis/marker/commit/ a6ae37e7f76a58812029f63a679bcfa138fd3e64
Ok.
Versioning should be just 2023.05.02 I believe.
Latest release at GitHub is just `2023.05.02` so yes, it should: https://codeberg.org/Lihis/marker/commit/ 4495f7bf0ccf4bb41c620730fa929b784358f973
Ok, good.
We have 3 more LICENSE files from Source[123]. Consider packing them as well. NOT A BLOCKER.
How this should be handled? Just `cp` the licenses to `%{_licensedir}/marker/`?
I believe that's the onl way. Something ugly like this:
``` %autosetup -n Marker-%{version} -D -T -a1 -N %autosetup -n Marker-%{version} -D -T -a2 -N %autosetup -n Marker-%{version} -D -T -a3 -N
cp scidown-%{submodule1_commit}/LICENSE LICENSE.scidown cp charter-%{submodule2_commit}/LICENSE LICENSE.charter cp tinyexpr-%{submodule3_commit}/LICENSE LICENSE.tinyexpr ```
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #17 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net ---
I believe that's the onl way. Something ugly like this:
Done (https://codeberg.org/Lihis/marker/commit/bb37a395391d656f2f8dcdc4e32d5471ff4...)
----
I guess that's all? And thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Good. I don't see any other issues so this package is
================ === APPROVED === ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6931ce1455 (marker-2023.05.02-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6931ce1455
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-05-05 11:17:13
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6931ce1455 (marker-2023.05.02-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370
--- Comment #21 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- @peter F42 update at Bodhi if you want to give karma: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-38b719e754
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com