[Bug 527706] New: Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527706
Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dave@adsllc.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.adsllc.com/tmp/mingw32-libgeotiff.spec SRPM URL: http://www.adsllc.com/tmp/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-svn1664.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image library
GeoTIFF represents an effort by over 160 different remote sensing, GIS, cartographic, and surveying related companies and organizations to establish a TIFF based interchange format for georeferenced raster imagery.
This is my second package submission, and I am looking for a sponsor. See also: mingw32-proj.
The source for this is SVN rev 1664 from https://svn.osgeo.org/metacrs/geotiff/trunk/libgeotiff, then './autogen.sh' and 'mingw32-configure' and 'make dist'. The latest release has build system issues that make porting difficult so a SVN snapshot is used instead for now - I expect libgeotiff-1.3.0 to fix this when it is released.
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=527706
Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |527704(mingw32-proj), | |454410(mingw32-gcc) Alias| |mingw32-libgeotiff
--- Comment #1 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-10-15 10:15:34 EDT --- Fix a number of self-caught packing problems.
rpmlint mingw32-libgeotiff.spec mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-1.svn1664.fc11.src.rpm mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-1.svn1664.fc11.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
SPEC: http://adsllc.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-libgeotiff.spec
SRPM (won't build in Koji yet due to mingw32-proj dependency): http://adsllc.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-1.svn...
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=527706
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-10-15 12:14:48 EDT --- I'll review it.
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=527706
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-10-18 13:21:44 EDT --- Are there any reasons to use pre-1.3.0 version instead of stable 1.2.5? We are still providing 1.2.5 in main Fedora.
Other things looks sane.
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=527706
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-10-18 13:26:59 EDT --- And, please, add more files to %doc - LICENSE, at least (actually, you must add it).
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=527706
--- Comment #5 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-10-18 23:18:56 EDT --- #3 - 1.2.5 has a broken build system that doesn't work with mingw32-configure. The 1.3.0 release should include the fix, but svn 1664 works for now.
#4 - This command svn co -r 1664 https://svn.osgeo.org/metacrs/geotiff/trunk/libgeotiff ; cd libgeotiff ; ./autogen.sh ; mingw32-configure ; make dist Does not include the LICENSE file in resulting libgeotiff-1.3.0.tar.gz.
The review guidelines say this must be packaged "if and only if" the source package includes it, which is does not. I'll look into sending a fix upstream since it probably should be included in later releases.
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=527706
--- Comment #6 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-10-19 09:09:26 EDT --- Upstream packaging bug submitted so that LICENSE (and other things) get included in the tarball:
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/3192
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=527706
--- Comment #7 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-01 08:51:50 EDT --- Ping. I believe the package meets the requirements as-is. Comment #3 has been addressed (I'm using SVN instead of a release for a good reason). Comment #4 has also been addressed (LICENSE is not in the upstream source tarball, so I cannot include it).
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=527706
--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-11-01 09:05:12 EDT --- Dave, I didn't made the full review only because mingw32-proj is still unavailable in Koji, and, therefore, I can't make test rebuild (which is necessary for me, for the review process).
I realized that you just requested a movement them to stable, so I'll do a review in a couple of days or so.
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=527706
--- Comment #9 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-01 09:36:39 EDT --- Got it - thanks.
Here is the mingw32-proj Koji page: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9367
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=527706
Bug 527706 depends on bug 527704, which changed state.
Bug 527704 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-proj - MinGW port of the proj cartographic projection library package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527704
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA
--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-11-05 09:58:03 EDT --- Koji scratchbuild for F-11 (success): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789938
Koji scratchbuild for F-12 (success): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789940
Koji scratchbuild for EL-5 (FAILURE!): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789943
Review:
+ rpmlint is silent
+/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines, except one small issue in the versioning scheme - since you're packaging pre-release (from VCS), then "Release" field should start from 0. E.g.
Release: 0.1.svn1664%{?dist}
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+/- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, should be included in %doc, but, unfortunately, upstream does not ship this file in their VCS. This issue was reported upstream (see comments above) and may be ignoired here.
+ The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible.
+/- The sources used to build the package, must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. However, since this is a pre-release and no tarball was provided by upstream, the only way to check the integrity of the sources, is to make diff against freshly checked out VCS tree. So, please, provide the instructions in comments somewhere within spec-file on how to create this checkout. See this spec, for example:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/superiotool/devel/superiotool.spec?...
+/- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Unfortunately, the package failed to build on EL-5 due to missing dependencies on mingw32-{libtiff|proj}. Please, keep this in mind, then you'll requesting cvs branches.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application.
- The package must NOT own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately, it owns %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig which is already owned by mingw32-filesystem.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8
Please, fixissues noted above, and I'll continue.
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=527706
--- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-11-14 06:13:18 EDT --- Ping, Dave.
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=527706
--- Comment #12 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-14 11:03:29 EDT --- Sorry, was out of town. Will get to this shortly.
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=527706
--- Comment #13 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-17 18:05:26 EDT --- +/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines, except one small issue in the versioning scheme - since you're packaging pre-release (from VCS), then "Release" field should start from 0.
Done
+/- The sources used to build the package, must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. However, since this is a pre-release and no tarball was provided by upstream, the only way to check the integrity of the sources, is to make diff against freshly checked out VCS tree. So, please, provide the instructions in comments somewhere within spec-file on how to create this checkout.
Done
+/- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Unfortunately, the package failed to build on EL-5 due to missing dependencies on mingw32-{libtiff|proj}. Please, keep this in mind, then you'll requesting cvs branches.
Noted
- The package must NOT own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately, it owns %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig which is already owned by mingw32-filesystem.
Fixed
SPEC: http://adsllc.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw32-libgeotiff.spec
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1813287
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=527706
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-11-18 00:30:53 EDT --- Ok, I don't see any other issues, so this package is
APPROVED.
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=527706
Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #15 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-18 11:26:20 EDT --- Thanks Peter!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-libgeotiff Short Description: MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image library Owners: adsllc Branches: F-11 F-12
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=527706
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-11-19 13:29:02 EDT --- CVS done.
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=527706
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(dave@adsllc.com)
--- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-11-29 12:06:01 EDT --- Ping, Dave. We are waiting for you :)
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=527706
Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(dave@adsllc.com) |
--- Comment #18 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-30 08:12:50 EDT --- Thanks for the ping...
I now seem to be stuck. I've gotten to "Tag Or Update Your Branches" on this list: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
But I'm getting this error:
[davel@myth F-12]$ make tag rpm: no arguments given for query cvs tag -c mingw32-libgeotiff-- ERROR: Tag mingw32-libgeotiff-- is not in name-version-release format cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first! make: *** [tag] Error 1
I've never seen this with any previous packages - suggestions?
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=527706
--- Comment #19 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-11-30 08:57:01 EDT --- It seems that you forgot to checkout spec-file first.
$ ./common/cvs-import.sh -b "branch name" -m "message" ~/path/to/mingw32-libgeotiff.srpm
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=527706
--- Comment #20 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-30 09:50:17 EDT --- I had done ./common/cvs-import.sh ~/path/to/mingw32-libgeotiff.srpm.
To be safe, I just did
./common/cvs-import.sh -b "F-12" -m "Initial F-12 import" /home/davel/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12.src.rpm
and
./common/cvs-import.sh -b "F-11" -m "Initial F-11 import" /home/davel/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12.src.rpm
per your suggestion.
I still get the same error.
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=527706
--- Comment #21 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-11-30 11:56:16 EDT --- Perhaps you forgot to type
$ cvs up
in the mingw32-libgeotiff cvs directory. Since my last comment I see that you're uploaded all necessary files, and it's time to download them locally :)
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=527706
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-30 13:03:57 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664....
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=527706
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-30 13:04:03 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664....
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=527706
--- Comment #24 from Dave Ludlow dave@adsllc.com 2009-11-30 13:07:47 EDT --- Thanks Peter. You were spot-on. I swear I tried that before.
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=527706
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-01 23:27:12 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update mingw32-libgeotiff'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-12480
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=527706
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-01 23:28:49 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update mingw32-libgeotiff'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-12490
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=527706
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-11 13:14:43 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=527706
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA
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=527706
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-11 13:22:45 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=527706
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc11 |1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla