[Bug 1771173] New: Review Request: xournalpp - Handwriting note-taking software with PDF annotation support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Bug ID: 1771173 Summary: Review Request: xournalpp - Handwriting note-taking software with PDF annotation support Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid... Description: Xournal++ is a handwriting note-taking software with PDF annotation support. Supports Pen input like Wacom Tablets Fedora Account System Username: luya
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- Change this from
BuildRequires: cmake >= 3.10
to
BuildRequires: cmake3 >= 3.10
and this
%build %cmake %make_build
to
%build %cmake3 %make_build
You also need to validate the appdata file
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data...
Also change the source url from
URL: https://github.com/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D Source0: https://github.com/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz#/%%...
to
URL: https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
It makes it easier to read and navigate to the url
Also there is no need to use %{name}-%{version} in setup, change
%prep %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
to
%prep %autosetup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #1)
Change this from
BuildRequires: cmake >= 3.10
to
BuildRequires: cmake3 >= 3.10
and this
%build %cmake %make_build
to
%build %cmake3 %make_build
Done
You also need to validate the appdata file
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ #_app_data_validate_usage
Good catch. Appdata is included upstream and validation is applied.
Also change the source url from
URL: https://github.com/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D Source0: https://github.com/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz#/%%... %{version}.tar.gz
to
URL: https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
It makes it easier to read and navigate to the url
Given the name of the project and its team are identical, I keep the %{name} for URL path and use %{url} for the Source0.
Also there is no need to use %{name}-%{version} in setup, change
%prep %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
to
%prep %autosetup
Done.
Here is the updated SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid... SPRMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- New revision based on update upstream application
SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid... SPRMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Your dynamic build requirements are not dynamic, so there's no point to adding them on Fedora 31+.
These directories are not owned: * /usr/share/locale/tlh_AA/LC_MESSAGES * /usr/share/locale/tlh_AA * /usr/share/mimelnk * /usr/share/mimelnk/application * /usr/share/xournalpp
Don't think the first two are valid; for mimelnk use Requires:kde-filesystem; for xournalpp, you need to own it.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: xournalpp-1.0.16-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm xournalpp-debuginfo-1.0.16-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm xournalpp-debugsource-1.0.16-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm xournalpp-1.0.16-1.fc32.src.rpm xournalpp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xournal -> Journal xournalpp.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.16.1 ['1.0.16-1.fc32', '1.0.16-1'] xournalpp.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xournalpp/ui/icons/hicolor/update-icon-cache.sh 644 /bin/bash xournalpp.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xournalpp/ui/iconsDark/hicolor/update-icon-cache.sh 644 /bin/bash xournalpp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xournal-thumbnailer xournalpp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xournalpp xournalpp.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/tlh_AA/LC_MESSAGES/xournalpp.mo xournalpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xournal -> Journal xournalpp.src:42: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 42) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
The /usr/share/xournalpp/ui/icons/hicolor/ directory seems wrong. Shouldn't those icons be in /usr/share/icons/hicolor? And the scripts and cache should be left out. Possibly same with the pixmaps directory.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL Last Closed| |2019-11-27 14:21:11
--- Comment #5 from Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com --- Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Felix Schwarz fschwarz@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|EOL |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #6 from Felix Schwarz fschwarz@fedoraproject.org --- bad EOL bot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #4)
Your dynamic build requirements are not dynamic, so there's no point to adding them on Fedora 31+.
Updated package SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid... SRPMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Add a Requires: hicolor-icon-theme for owning the icons directory
- You need to validate the desktop file too:
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
[…]
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.desktop
- Split %{_datadir}/%{name} into a separate noarch data subpackage and Requires it from the main package:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2099200 bytes in /usr/share
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* Boost Software License (v1.0) Boost Software License 1.0", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)". 882 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/xournalpp/review- xournalpp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2099200 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: xournalpp-1.0.16-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm xournalpp-debuginfo-1.0.16-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm xournalpp-debugsource-1.0.16-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm xournalpp-1.0.16-2.fc32.src.rpm xournalpp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xournal -> Journal xournalpp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xournal-thumbnailer xournalpp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xournalpp xournalpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xournal -> Journal xournalpp.src:41: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 41) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #9 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8)
Add a Requires: hicolor-icon-theme for owning the icons directory
You need to validate the desktop file too:
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
[…]
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.desktop
Fixed.
- Split %{_datadir}/%{name} into a separate noarch data subpackage and
Requires it from the main package:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2099200 bytes in /usr/share
Split done for ui and plugisn.
Updated files SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid... SRPMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You're including the data twice by having %{_datadir}/%{name} in the main package
%files -f %{name}.lang %license LICENSE %doc README.md AUTHORS %{_bindir}/xournal-thumbnailer %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/applications/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.desktop %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/mimetypes/* %{_datadir}/mime/packages/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.xml %exclude %{_datadir}/mimelnk/application/* %{_datadir}/thumbnailers/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.thumbnailer %{_datadir}/%{name} <---- %{_metainfodir}/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.appdata.xml
%files plugins %{_datadir}/%{name}/plugins
%files ui %{_datadir}/%{name}/ui
Change it to %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} to just own the directory
Also the main package should Requires the ui and plugins subpackages for them to be installed altogether.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #11 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
- You're including the data twice by having %{_datadir}/%{name} in the main
package
%files -f %{name}.lang %license LICENSE %doc README.md AUTHORS %{_bindir}/xournal-thumbnailer %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/applications/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.desktop %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/mimetypes/* %{_datadir}/mime/packages/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.xml %exclude %{_datadir}/mimelnk/application/* %{_datadir}/thumbnailers/com.github.%{name}.%{name}.thumbnailer %{_datadir}/%{name} <----
Good catch. Fixed
Change it to %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} to just own the directory
Also the main package should Requires the ui and plugins subpackages for them to be installed altogether.
Done.
Updated files SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid... SRPMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/xournalpp/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #13 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
Package approved.
Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #14 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xournalpp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-f29b3556a6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f29b3556a6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-77d811c0ca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-77d811c0ca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-95c0785fdc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-95c0785fdc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-cb6a443378 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cb6a443378
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xournalpp-1.0.16-7.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a8404911a9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xournalpp-1.0.16-7.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cb6a443378
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #22 from Dario Lesca d.lesca@solinos.it --- This package (xournalpp) substitute previous old package xournal?
I have try to update xournal with this command:
sudo yum update --enablerepo updates-testing xournal
But it's not updatable.
I have must uninstall xournal and install xournalpp
Is this correct? Thanks Dario
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #23 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to Dario Lesca from comment #22)
This package (xournalpp) substitute previous old package xournal?
I have try to update xournal with this command:
sudo yum update --enablerepo updates-testing xournal
But it's not updatable.
I have must uninstall xournal and install xournalpp
Is this correct? Thanks Dario
You can install xournalpp along xournal if you like. You can use xournalpp as a substitute. The original author of xournal even recommends it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2019-11-27 14:21:11 |2020-01-03 20:35:47
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xournalpp-1.0.16-7.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771173
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xournalpp-1.0.16-7.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com