[Bug 230250] New: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility
                    library & devel bits
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gtkhtml38.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gtkhtml38-3.12.3-2.src.rpm
Description: 
GtkHTML is a lightweight HTML rendering/printing/editing engine.  It
was originally based on KHTMLW, but is now being developed
independently of it.

This package implements the GtkHTML 3.8 API, for packages who cannot
use newer versions of GtkHTML.

The gtkhtml api & abi changed in the development tree with the move from libgnomeprint to gtkprint. Various apps may not be able to cope with the change, either due to the scope of the printing changes required, or the fact that they depend on other libraries not yet ported to GtkPrint. Hence, a compat library for them to build and run against.

See also:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401970

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-27 14:33 EST -------
Since this is a compatibility package, shouldn't it be named compat-gtkhtml38?

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-27 14:53 EST -------
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines implies gtkhtml38, like
openssl096b.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |230907
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |188267
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-10 17:27 EST -------
rpmlint gives the following output:

W: gtkhtml38-devel no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc).
You have to include documentation files.

Which in this case is fine anyway since I couldn't find any documentation in the
source package that could have been included.

Package name and spec file name are fine.

License is fine and included in the package.

Source file matches upstream.

Package compiles and builds on x86.

Build dependencies listed correctly in BuildRequires.

.so files split up correctly between main package and devel package.

no .la files.

-devel requires base package correctly.

package cleanup is fine.

So everything is basically fine.

However one small error is the line trying to delete a .servere file.

rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/bonobo/servers/GNOME_GtkHTML_Editor-3.8.servere

That should be

rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/bonobo/servers/GNOME_GtkHTML_Editor-3.8.server

And it might be nice with a small note in spec file explaining why the .server
file is being deleted. I am assuming it is because you want this package just to
provide the old libs and not the old bonobo components?

If you fix these small things I'll ACCEPT the package. By the way this will be
first formal package review so I hope I am doing it correctly.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-10 18:23 EST -------
The server file should not be deleted!

My guess is at one time the upstream package shipped a misspelled Bonobo server
file and this command corrected the error so that we wouldn't package it, but I
can't find any evidence of that in the ChangeLog or in Bugzilla.  The entire
command can be safely removed, which I've already done for Rawhide.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-10 19:07 EST -------
Okay. That's why I asked for clarification. So with the rm line gone I think the
package should be accepted.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-12 12:29 EST -------
New spec file uploaded with the 'rm' removed.

Matt - is the gtkhtml with the ABI bump in rawhide yet?

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-12 13:10 EST -------
No, not yet.  Seems upstream rediscovered the problem at the 11th hour.

See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401970#c24 and onward.

I'm waiting to see how this turns out before updating Rawhide.  I don't want the
soname in Fedora to get out of sync with upstream, broken or not.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-12 14:39 EST -------
Built the new rpm and tried to install it:

maxx@ice:~/rpmbuild/SPECS$ sudo rpm -Uvh ../RPMS/i386/gtkhtml38-3.12.3-3.i386.rpm 
Password:
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
        file /usr/lib/bonobo/servers/GNOME_GtkHTML_Editor-3.8.server from
install of gtkhtml38-3.12.3-3 conflicts with file from package
gtkhtml3-3.13.92-2.fc7
        file /usr/lib/gtkhtml/libgnome-gtkhtml-editor-3.8.so from install of
gtkhtml38-3.12.3-3 conflicts with file from package gtkhtml3-3.13.92-2.fc7
        file /usr/share/gtkhtml-3.8/GNOME_GtkHTML_Editor-emacs.xml from install
of gtkhtml38-3.12.3-3 conflicts with file from package gtkhtml3-3.13.92-2.fc7
        file /usr/share/gtkhtml-3.8/GNOME_GtkHTML_Editor.xml from install of
gtkhtml38-3.12.3-3 conflicts with file from package gtkhtml3-3.13.92-2.fc7
        file /usr/share/gtkhtml-3.8/gtkhtml-editor-properties.glade from install
of gtkhtml38-3.12.3-3 conflicts with file from package gtkhtml3-3.13.92-2.fc7

Will these conflicts go away when the new gtkhtml3 hits rawhide?

Otherwise the install directory for these file (/usr/share/gtkhtml-3.8/) has to
be patched to something else.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-12 14:49 EST -------
It should, yes.  But that requires upstream to respin with the changes. which
we're waiting on.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-12 14:56 EST -------
They just did.  Should be fixed in gtkhtml3-3.14.0-1.fc7, which will be
available in the next day or so (soon as I get it packaged).

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-13 15:02 EST -------
I updated to gtkhtml3-3.14.0-1.fc7 and did a mock build of gtkhtml38. They both
install fine alongside each other - and gnucash is now able to run and show
reports, so everything is in order.

So I've ACCEPTed the package.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-13 15:08 EST -------
Setting fedora-cvs flag.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: gtkhtml38
Short Description: GtkHTML library, API version 3.8
Owners: [e-mail]
Branches: devel only
InitialCC:

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-19 15:31 EST -------
This is built now.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|188267                      |
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs+                 |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-06-06 16:43 EST -------
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: gtkhtml38
New Branches: EL-5

Requesting to add to EL-5, as the gtkhtml3 ABI was changed in 5.2.

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-06-06 16:52 EST -------
As I said on the epel mailing list, isn't that package conflicting
with a package in RHEL (and it is forbidden)?

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-06-06 17:03 EST -------
It will not conflict with anything in RHEL 5.2. If it's decided to add something
like this to a later RHEL update, it can then be retired...

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-06-06 17:47 EST -------
Bug #345531 was the original ticket I opened for adding this package to RHEL
5.2.  I closed it as WONTFIX since nothing in RHEL needs it and I thought it
would be easier to just add it to EPEL ("easier" meaning less red tape).  Are we
looking to add it to RHEL after all?

[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230250

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-06-08 13:53 EST -------
cvs done.