Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: jwm - Joe's Window Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604971
Summary: Review Request: jwm - Joe's Window Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gracca@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/gracca/jwm.spec
SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/gracca/jwm-2.0.1-2.20100616svn.fc13.src.rpm
Description: JWM is a window manager for the X11 Window System. JWM is written in C and uses only Xlib at a minimum. The following libraries can also be used if available:
* libXext for the shape extension * libXext for the render extension * libXmu for drawing rounded windows (shape extension also needed) * libXinerama for Xinerama support * libXpm for XPM backgrounds and icons * libjpeg for JPEG backgrounds and icons * libpng for PNG backgrounds and icons * libxft for antialiased and true type fonts * libfribidi for right-to-left language support
It can support some MWM, GNOME, and WM Spec hints.
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=604971
--- Comment #1 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2010-06-28 18:18:12 EDT --- Files moved to fedorapeople.org:
Spec URL: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm.spec
SRPM URL: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm-2.0.1-2.20100616svn.fc13.src.rpm
Nobody interested in this package?
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=604971
--- Comment #2 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2010-06-29 01:09:29 EDT --- $ rpmlint SRPMS/jwm-2.0.1-2.20100616svn.fc13.src.rpm jwm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Joe's -> Jo's, Jose's, Joey's jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> liberty, Liberty, libretto jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium, Libau, libelous jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama, liberalness, liberalism jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium, Libyan, libido jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> Liberec, libelee, libeler jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> Libyan, libation, libelant jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> librate, liberty, Liberty jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, antiallergic jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinous, libidinal, liberticide 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/i686/jwm-2.0.1-2.20100616svn.fc13.i686.rpm jwm.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Joe's -> Jo's, Jose's, Joey's jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> liberty, Liberty, libretto jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium, Libau, libelous jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama, liberalness, liberalism jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium, Libyan, libido jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> Liberec, libelee, libeler jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> Libyan, libation, libelant jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> librate, liberty, Liberty jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, antiallergic jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinous, libidinal, liberticide jwm.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/jwm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
$ koji build --scratch dist-f13 SRPMS/jwm-2.0.1-2.20100616svn.fc13.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2279589
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=604971
Felipe Contreras felipe.contreras@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |felipe.contreras@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contreras@gmail.com 2010-08-10 06:46:49 EDT --- Looks like it's missing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
Also, since it's supposed to work on GNOME, shouldn't it have a jwm-gnome.desktop?
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=604971
--- Comment #4 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contreras@gmail.com 2010-08-10 07:10:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Looks like it's missing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
Er, %configure deals with that, sorry.
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=604971
--- Comment #5 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2010-08-20 17:27:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Looks like it's missing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
Also, since it's supposed to work on GNOME, shouldn't it have a jwm-gnome.desktop?
Hi Felipe:
How to implement jwm-gnome.desktop? Maybe asking upstream?
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=604971
--- Comment #6 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contreras@gmail.com 2010-08-23 06:20:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #3)
Looks like it's missing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
Also, since it's supposed to work on GNOME, shouldn't it have a jwm-gnome.desktop?
How to implement jwm-gnome.desktop? Maybe asking upstream?
See openbox, and ask the jwm community.
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=604971
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-01-08 19:11:48 EST --- Any progress implementing the .desktop file?
Should this be updated to the current snapshot revision (seems to be 500)?
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=604971
--- Comment #8 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-01-09 03:01:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #7)
Any progress implementing the .desktop file?
Should this be updated to the current snapshot revision (seems to be 500)?
Updated JWM to latest snapshot:
SPEC: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm-2.0.1-3.20110108svn.fc14.src.rpm
About the desktop file suggested in comment #3, I will contact upstream soon.
Cheers, German.
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=604971
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mariobl@freenet.de
--- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-04-25 15:54:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Looks like it's missing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
Also, since it's supposed to work on GNOME, shouldn't it have a jwm-gnome.desktop?
There are a lot of EWMH compatible window managers which work under GNOME, Xfce, LXDE... But most of them don't have such a special *.desktop file. I'm using Fluxbox under GNOME for a long time, and I don't need it. The mentioned construct which lets appear a "GNOME/Openbox" entry in GDM, is an exception here, and it is provided by the Openbox source package itself. With the upcoming GNOME 3 in F15 we get rid of the window manager choice anyway, if we follow the GNOME Shell. The "missing" *.desktop file shouldn't be a blocker here.
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=604971
--- Comment #10 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-05-08 09:07:26 EDT --- Any news about 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=604971
--- Comment #11 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-05-20 23:06:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
Any news about this?
I'm waiting for a review.
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=604971
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mariobl@freenet.de
--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-05-22 13:48:58 EDT --- Just tested it on F15. Works fine so far, there is a "jwm" entry in GDM, and jwm starts as expected. But one issue though:
There is no local config file initially. The global configuration in /etc/system.jwmrc contains the following line:
<Program icon="terminal.png" label="Terminal">xterm</Program>
Means, to run anything, we need at least a terminal, and xterm is not defined as a dependency. If I click on "Terminal" in the jwm menu, nothing happens. And there are no other useful entries which would work. In my mind, the xterm requirement should be added to the package, to get a basic way to start the installed applications. It doesn't eat up lots of disk space.
Koji scratch build for F15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3086111
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=604971
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
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=604971
--- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-06-08 09:09:08 EDT --- BTW, I'm missing a scriptlet for a proper *.desktop file installation, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usag....
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=604971
--- Comment #14 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-06-28 14:13:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)
BTW, I'm missing a scriptlet for a proper *.desktop file installation, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usag....
Hi Mario: please let me some time because I'm full of work :(
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=604971
--- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-08-19 05:42:25 EDT --- Such a scriptlet is not needed, because the currently included *.desktop file controls the JWM session only. It is not intended to be a launcher which people can use to start JWM from a menu.
That's why, there remains just one issue, to make xterm a runtime dependency for the convenience of users. The "JWM-Gnome" entry for the display manager would be fine to have, but is not a blocker.
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=604971
--- Comment #16 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-08-19 10:59:16 EDT --- OK, I'm going to work on this package this weekend and include the xterm as a requires. Thanks Mario :)
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=604971
--- Comment #17 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-08-19 18:29:00 EDT --- Hi Mario:
I have added xterm as a requires, and also I have changed the format of the Release tag: now I don't use snapshot, I only use revision, because I guess jwm is not updated nightly as the developer says in the homepage (revision 500 is there from long time ago). Please find updated files here:
SPEC: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm.spec
SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm-2.0.1-4.svn500.fc15.src.rpm
Cheers, Germán.
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=604971
--- Comment #18 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-08-20 03:50:50 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3288601
$ rpmlint -i -v * jwm.i686: I: checking jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> extensible The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> libel The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> sibling The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> lift The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, initialized The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinal The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jwm-2.0.1/LICENSE The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
jwm.src: I: checking jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> extensible The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> libel The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> sibling The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> lift The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, initialized The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinal The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.src: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm/snapshots/jwm-500.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.x86_64: I: checking jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> extensible The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> libel The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> sibling The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> lift The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, initialized The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinal The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jwm-2.0.1/LICENSE The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
jwm-debuginfo.i686: I: checking jwm-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable creation of the debuginfo package.
jwm-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking jwm-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable creation of the debuginfo package.
jwm.spec: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm/snapshots/jwm-500.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 27 warnings.
Some ignorable spelling errors, but also empty debug packages. Seems to be the right compiler flags haven't applied. To add CFLAGS='$RPM_OPT_FLAGS' or CFLAGS='%{optflags}' to the "make" call should solve the problem. I recommend the latter, because we shouldn't mix variables and macros.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604971
--- Comment #19 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-08-20 03:53:32 EDT --- Regarding the old FSF address, you don't have to change anything for the time being. But please inform the upstream developers about this issue, so that they can change it in the next release.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604971
--- Comment #20 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-08-22 06:41:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) ......
Some ignorable spelling errors, but also empty debug packages. Seems to be the right compiler flags haven't applied. To add CFLAGS='$RPM_OPT_FLAGS' or CFLAGS='%{optflags}' to the "make" call should solve the problem. I recommend the latter, because we shouldn't mix variables and macros.
Mario: I got the following errors while using cflags as you suggested.
+ make -j4 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic' cd src ; make all make[1]: Entering directory `/home/german/rpmbuild/BUILD/jwm-500/src' gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic background.c gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic border.c gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic button.c gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic client.c In file included from jwm.h:92:0, from client.c:10: /usr/include/ft2build.h:56:38: fatal error: freetype/config/ftheader.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. In file included from jwm.h:92:0, from button.c:10: /usr/include/ft2build.h:56:38: fatal error: freetype/config/ftheader.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. In file included from jwm.h:92:0, from background.c:10: /usr/include/ft2build.h:56:38: fatal error: freetype/config/ftheader.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. In file included from jwm.h:92:0, from border.c:7: /usr/include/ft2build.h:56:38: fatal error: freetype/config/ftheader.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. make[1]: *** [client.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... make[1]: *** [background.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [button.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [border.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/german/rpmbuild/BUILD/jwm-500/src' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /home/german/rpmbuild/TMP/rpm-tmp.xXBN8v (%build)
Can you help me with that?
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=604971
--- Comment #21 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-08-22 06:44:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
Regarding the old FSF address, you don't have to change anything for the time being. But please inform the upstream developers about this issue, so that they can change it in the next release.
OK, I will do that.
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=604971
--- Comment #22 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-08-22 14:08:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) [...]
In file included from jwm.h:92:0, from client.c:10: /usr/include/ft2build.h:56:38: fatal error: freetype/config/ftheader.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated.
The package freetype-devel is obviously missing from BuildRequires.
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=604971
--- Comment #23 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-08-22 15:02:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22)
(In reply to comment #20) [...]
In file included from jwm.h:92:0, from client.c:10: /usr/include/ft2build.h:56:38: fatal error: freetype/config/ftheader.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated.
The package freetype-devel is obviously missing from BuildRequires.
Done. I also replaced libjpeg-devel by libjpeg-turbo-devel in BR. But the errors are the same as above.
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=604971
--- Comment #24 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-08-28 16:08:41 EDT --- The current Makefile in src/ (created by configure script) says:
LDFLAGS = -lX11 -lpng12 -ljpeg -lXft -lXrender -lX11 -lfribidi -lXpm -lXext -lXmu -lXinerama
We have to add -lfreetype in some way. Normally, this should be possible with a configure option, but --with-freetype doesn't work. Don't know what to do in this case.
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=604971
--- Comment #25 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-08-28 16:21:26 EDT --- Ah, just seen: The src/Makefile also says:
-I/usr/include/freetype2
That is, the Linker is looking for the wrong package. Perhaps changes could be applied by a sed command after configure is finished...? Don't know if it is usual to apply a patch after the configure run.
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=604971
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@uos.de
--- Comment #26 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2011-08-29 02:54:09 EDT --- It's not necessary to explicitly set the %opflags. They are defined correctly by the %configure macro. The debug package is empty due to the call of "strip" in src/Makefile. It should be sufficient to remove it from src/Makefile.in with a patch.
The include path /usr/include/freetype2 is correct. Thus the compiler should be able to find it if freetype-devel has been installed.
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=604971
--- Comment #27 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-08-30 17:16:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26)
It's not necessary to explicitly set the %opflags. They are defined correctly by the %configure macro. The debug package is empty due to the call of "strip" in src/Makefile. It should be sufficient to remove it from src/Makefile.in with a patch.
The include path /usr/include/freetype2 is correct. Thus the compiler should be able to find it if freetype-devel has been installed.
OK, I have removed optflags and applied a patch to remove the stripping of the binary, and that did the trick. Please find new files here:
SPEC: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc15.src.rpm
Koji builds from scratch:
dist-f15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3313321 dist-rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3313797
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=604971
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #28 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-09-01 04:34:06 EDT --- $ rpmlint -i -v * jwm.i686: I: checking jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> extensible The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> libel The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> sibling The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> lift The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, initialized The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinal The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.i686: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jwm-2.0.1/LICENSE The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
jwm.src: I: checking jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> extensible The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> libel The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> sibling The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> lift The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, initialized The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinal The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.src: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.src: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm/snapshots/jwm-500.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.x86_64: I: checking jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXext -> extensible The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXmu -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXinerama -> Cinerama The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libXpm -> Librium The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjpeg -> libel The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpng -> sibling The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxft -> lift The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased, anti-aliased, initialized The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfribidi -> libidinal The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jwm.x86_64: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jwm-2.0.1/LICENSE The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
jwm-debuginfo.i686: I: checking jwm-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking jwm-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm (timeout 10 seconds) jwm.spec: I: checking-url http://joewing.net/programs/jwm/snapshots/jwm-500.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 27 warnings.
Spellchecker warnings could be ignored. For the incorrect FSF address, you should ping the upstream developers, if that hasn't already been done.
--------------------------------- key:
[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. GPLv2+ [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum * e046d1720c8f9fcbffd58cb6c4b0dbad jwm-500.tar.bz2 e046d1720c8f9fcbffd58cb6c4b0dbad jwm-500.tar.bz2.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - Succesful Koji build available. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled. [.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information, the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), ... [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream... [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway) [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Works fine for me (f15, i686) [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
If you don't want to provide your package for EPEL < 6, then you might drop the BuildRoot line, the %clean section, and %defattr.
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=604971
--- Comment #29 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-09-01 15:02:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28)
Spellchecker warnings could be ignored. For the incorrect FSF address, you should ping the upstream developers, if that hasn't already been done.
Yes, I've already done it.
PACKAGE APPROVED
Thank you very much for your review!
If you don't want to provide your package for EPEL < 6, then you might drop the BuildRoot line, the %clean section, and %defattr.
Well, I don't know if in the future I'll compile for EPEL, so I'll leave the spec file unchanged.
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=604971
Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #30 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2011-09-02 11:09:27 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jwm Short Description: Joe's Window Manager Owners: skytux Branches: f14 f15 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=604971
--- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-09-02 11:47:52 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=604971
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=604971
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-02 13:07:05 EDT --- jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc14
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=604971
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-02 13:16:48 EDT --- jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc15
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=604971
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-02 13:29:40 EDT --- jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc16
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=604971
Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-09-02 13:34:44
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=604971
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-24 23:43:28 EDT --- jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
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=604971
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc14 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |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=604971
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-24 23:52:30 EDT --- jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
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=604971
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc14 |jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc15
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=604971
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-30 14:31:56 EDT --- jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
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=604971
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc15 |jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc16
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=604971
Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #38 from Germán Racca gracca@gmail.com 2012-02-22 11:25:56 EST --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: jwm New Branches: el6 Owners: splinux skytux
I'm authorizing the user splinux to co-maintain this epel branch for jwm.
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=604971
--- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-02-22 11:39:15 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=604971
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-22 14:10:39 EST --- jwm-2.0.1-9.svn500.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jwm-2.0.1-9.svn500.el6
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=604971
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-24 17:01:09 EST --- jwm-2.0.1-9.svn500.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jwm-2.0.1-9.svn500.el6
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=604971
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-24 17:13:36 EST --- jwm-2.0.1-10.svn500.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jwm-2.0.1-10.svn500.el6
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=604971
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|jwm-2.0.1-6.svn500.fc16 |jwm-2.0.1-10.svn500.el6
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-11 14:52:17 EDT --- jwm-2.0.1-10.svn500.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla