[Bug 707389] New: Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389
Summary: Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: metherid@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/libwebp.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/libwebp-0.1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: WebP is an image format that does lossy compression of digital photographic images. WebP consists of a codec based on VP8, and a container based on RIFF. Webmasters, web developers and browser developers can use WebP to compress, archive and distribute digital images more efficiently.
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=707389
Veeti Paananen veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi
--- Comment #1 from Veeti Paananen veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi 2011-07-21 12:19:35 EDT --- rpmlint:
[veeti@veeti-pc result]$ rpmlint *.rpm libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libwebp.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-1 ['0.1.2-1.fc15', '0.1.2-1'] libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
-----------------------
Some "informal comments":
- As mentioned by rpmlint, the changelog has an invalid version number.
- The build requirement for automake is unnecessary.
- The build requirements should probably be listed one per line.
- The devel package's base requirement should be fully versioned ("Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}").
- The tools package should also require the base package.
- You should enclose all the macros like %buildroot, etc. in curly braces ( %{buildroot} ).
- libjpeg-devel and libpng-devel are probably needed for using libwebp-devel, so those should be explicit requirements. (?)
- The files for the base package should be listed first. The -n %{name} part would then be unnecessary.
- The files should be selected more verbosely:
- Since the development headers are all contained in one folder, replace the "%_includedir/*" line with "%{_includedir}/webp/".
- Since there is only one pkgconfig file, just list it as "libwebp.pc".
- The tools package should use something like "%{_bindir}/*webp".
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=707389
--- Comment #2 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com 2012-01-15 19:25:39 EST --- Created attachment 555405 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=555405 libwebp_jni_example.java
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=707389
Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |scottt.tw@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |scottt.tw@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com 2012-01-15 19:54:32 EST --- I've made a copy of the SPEC with all my recommendations applied here: http://scottt.tw/fedora/libwebp.spec for your convenience.
1. Please update to libwebp-0.1.3
Upstream released libwebp-0.1.3 in September 2011. I've verified that simply bumping the version in the SPEC file works with the new tarball: http://code.google.com/p/webp/downloads/detail?name=libwebp-0.1.3.tar.gz&...
0.1.3 contains an ABI compatibility break and soname change from 0.1.2 (libwebp.so.0.0.0 -> libwebp.so.2.0.0) Thus packaging 0.1.3 directly avoids a soname change in the future.
2. Package the SWIG generated Java bindings: @@ -6,8 +6,11 @@ URL: http://webmproject.org/ Summary: Library and tools for the WebP graphics format # Additional IPR is licensed as well. See PATENTS file for details License: BSD -Source: http://webp.googlecode.com/files/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz -BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel libpng-devel libtool +Source0: http://webp.googlecode.com/files/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz +Source1: libwebp_jni_example.java +BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel libpng-devel libtool swig +BuildRequires: java-devel +BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
%description WebP is an image format that does lossy compression of digital @@ -39,6 +42,16 @@ container based on RIFF. Webmasters, web developers and browser developers can use WebP to compress, archive and distribute digital images more efficiently.
+%package java +Group: Development/Libraries +Summary: Java bindings for libwebp, a library for the WebP format +Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} +Requires: java +Requires: jpackage-utils + +%description java +Java bindings for libwebp. + %prep %setup -q
@@ -48,10 +61,35 @@ mkdir -p m4 %configure --disable-static make %{?_smp_mflags}
+# swig generated Java bindings +cp %{SOURCE1} . +cd swig +rm -rf libwebp.jar libwebp_java_wrap.c +mkdir -p java/com/google/webp +swig -ignoremissing -I../src -java \ + -package com.google.webp \ + -outdir java/com/google/webp \ + -o libwebp_java_wrap.c libwebp.i + +gcc %{optflags} -shared -fPIC -fno-strict-aliasing \ + -I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include \ + -I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include/linux \ + -I../src \ + -L../src/.libs -lwebp libwebp_java_wrap.c \ + -o libwebp_jni.so + +cd java +javac com/google/webp/libwebp.java +jar cvf ../libwebp.jar com/google/webp/*.class + %install make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} find "%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}" -type f -name "*.la" -delete
+# swig generated Java bindings +mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}-java +cp swig/*.jar swig/*.so %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}-java/ + %post -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig @@ -69,6 +107,10 @@ find "%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}" -type f -name "*.la" -delete %{_includedir}/* %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
+%files java +%doc libwebp_jni_example.java +%{_libdir}/%{name}-java/
The libwebp_jni_example.java file is attached to this bug.
3. Fix the dist tag: -Release: 1%{dist} +Release: 1%{?dist}
4. Fix the version number in the chanagelog: -* Wed May 25 2011 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org - 1.0.2-1 +* Wed May 25 2011 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org - 0.1.3-1 As pointed out by Veeti.
5. Drop autoconf, automake from BuildRequires as pointed out by Veeti.
libtool already requires both autoconf and automake. -BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel, libpng-devel autoconf automake libtool +BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel libpng-devel libtool
6. Fix libwebp-devel's Require line as pointed out by Veeti: -Requires: %{name} = %version +Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
7. Enclose RPM macros with curly braces as pointed out by Veeti: -make install DESTDIR=%buildroot -find "%buildroot/%_libdir" -type f -name "*.la" -delete +make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} +find "%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}" -type f -name "*.la" -delete
-%post -n %name -p /sbin/ldconfig +%post -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
-%postun -n %name -p /sbin/ldconfig +%postun -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
%files tools -%_bindir/* -%_mandir/man*/* +%{_bindir}/* +%{_mandir}/man*/*
%files -n %{name} %doc README PATENTS COPYING NEWS AUTHORS -%_libdir/%{name}*.so.* +%{_libdir}/%{name}*.so.*
%files devel -%_libdir/%{name}*.so -%_includedir/* -%_libdir/pkgconfig/* +%{_libdir}/%{name}*.so +%{_includedir}/* +%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [-]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) Note: Only applicable for EL-5 The pkgconfig dependency is automatically picked up for Fedora. This is fine.
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [-]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. All rpmlint output are justified.
These are not really spelling errors. rpmlint libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint libwebp-devel-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes
No documentation in libwebp-devel is fine. libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
These are not really spelling errors. rpmlint libwebp-tools-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/scottt/work/libwebp/fedora/libwebp-0.1.3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 254d4670e14e9ed881f0536b006ab336 MD5SUM upstream package : 254d4670e14e9ed881f0536b006ab336
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3704717
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
I'll approve this package once points one through seven above are addressed.
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=707389
--- Comment #4 from John Ellson john.ellson@comcast.net 2012-01-19 14:00:21 EST --- If this library could be released for f16 & f17, I could use it for the next release of graphviz. Upstream coding is completed and tested.
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=707389
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag| |needinfo?(metherid@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2012-01-30 15:03:13 EST --- Hello. Folks, what's the current status of this ticket?
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=707389
--- Comment #6 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com 2012-01-30 16:47:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Peter, I'm waiting for Rahul to respond to comment 3. I then plan to approve this.
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=707389
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2012-02-01 12:43:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5) Peter, I'm waiting for Rahul to respond to comment 3. I then plan to approve this.
Ok, understood.
Scott, if anything went wrong, then we would flip roles - I'm willing to review it if you take over this package. I really want to see this in Fedora.
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=707389
--- Comment #8 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com 2012-02-01 13:31:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Peter, I've mailed Rahul privately, asking if he has time to look at this or if he'd object to me taking over package submission.
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=707389
Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(metherid@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #9 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-02-01 19:12:07 EST ---
Sorry for the delay folks. I submitted this review many months back and forgot about it entirely. Thanks to Scott Tsai for the spec file changes and dropping me a reminder offlist.
http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/libwebp.spec http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm
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=707389
Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com 2012-02-01 19:22:34 EST --- Successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3753938
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=707389
--- Comment #11 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-02-01 19:48:12 EST ---
Thanks. Looks like it is going to be a dependency for a few packages and if anyone wants to be a co-maintainer, feel free to apply. I don't expect it to be a big burden.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libwebp Short Description: Library and tools for the WebP graphics format Owners: sundaram Branches: f17 f16 InitialCC:
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=707389
Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
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=707389
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-02-01 21:52:40 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
f17==devel, at least for a week for so yet. . .
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=707389
Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2012-02-01 23:42:23
--- Comment #13 from Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com 2012-02-01 23:42:23 EST ---
@John Ellson, I have built for Rawhide and Fedora 16 as well. Do let me know if you need any further help from me.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc16
Closing this review request.
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=707389
--- Comment #14 from John Ellson john.ellson@comcast.net 2012-02-02 10:39:07 EST --- Just FYI. At http://www.graphviz.org/ there are new development snapshot rpms of graphviz for fc17 that now include a libwebp plugin (graphviz-webp).
Thanks for packaging libwebp. Now its up to me to get a stable release of graphviz posted.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla