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=193106
Summary: Review Request: gtkmozembedmm Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: karlthered@gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/gtkmozembedmm.spec SRPM URL: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2-1.sr... Description: C++ bindings to libgtkembedmoz
This is one of my first packages, I need a sponsor
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| |
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-09-02 02:35 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See below - BuildRequires correct See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. See below - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. See below - Should build in mock.
Issues:
1. Source's don't match from upstream: 2e15fa5ac91ee0d8434d79fb0bb2badd gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.tar.gz d4233234e0af148764cb59d578f101fd gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.tar.gz.1
2. Is this package targeted for fc5 only? devel/rawhide/fc6 doesn't have mozilla-devel.
3. The URL doesn't seem to mention this library at all: URL: http://gtkmm.sourceforge.net/ Is there a more approprate one?
4. Since ldconfg is the only command you are running in the post and postun, you might change them to '%post -p /sbin/ldconfig' and '%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig'
5. Might not include the useless INSTALL and perhaps you should include the TODO file.
6. It doesn't seem to want to build here in mock for fc5: + ./configure --build=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --host=i686-redhat-linux-gnu -- target=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share -- includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec -- localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/usr/com --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/ usr/share/info --disable-static --enable-docs configure: error: cannot find install-sh or install.sh in scripts ./scripts error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22962 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22962 (%build)
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-09-11 04:44 EST ------- * updated spec: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/gtkmozembedmm.spec * updated SRPM: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs2...
0. License has been added (LGPL)
1. this is a mistake, the previous package didn't follow naming guidelines. Since the last tarball available is 2 years old and no more working, I'm using a cvs snapshot (17/08/2006 currently). I tested the sources, and I can compile and launch a minimal web browser using the bindings. 2. the autotools scripts requires mozilla-gtkmozembed.pc, so I added a conditional build requires on firefox-devel for FC6+ (plus a sed script to require firefox-gtkmozembed.pc) and mozilla-devel for older release. I didn't test the fc6 package but it builds fine under mock. 3. gtkmozembedmm has no web place except gnome cvs, but gtkmm mailing-lists provide some support. The binding is listed here: http://gtkmm.sourceforge.net/extra.shtml 4. done 5. done 6. the install-sh script is a symlink to /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh , I added automake-1.9 as BR, now the package builds in mock for fc5/f6 i386.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-09-11 22:16 EST ------- 0. ok.
1. Can you provide a quick script to get the cvs version you are using?
2. Sounds reasonable. I think there is movement to get a seperate package that provides this in fc7+, but for now this is the best solution.
3, 4, 5, 6: ok.
Now that I can get it to build in mock, rpmlint says:
W: gtkmozembedmm unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libgtkmozembedmm- 1.4.so.0.0.0 E: gtkmozembedmm-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package
These two are likely the permissions on the library being 644 instead of 755, so they don't properly get stripped and debuginfo collected. Change that file to 755 and it should clear up those issues.
E: gtkmozembedmm-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Some of the path's look wrong:
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Sep 11 20:08 /usr/lib/ gtkmozembedmm-1.4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Sep 11 20:08 /usr/lib/ gtkmozembedmm-1.4/include -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 289 Sep 11 20:08 /usr/lib/ gtkmozembedmm-1.4/include/gtkmozembedmmconfig.h drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Sep 11 20:08 /usr/lib/ gtkmozembedmm-1.4/proc drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Sep 11 20:08 /usr/lib/ gtkmozembedmm-1.4/proc/m4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 177 Sep 11 20:08 /usr/lib/ gtkmozembedmm-1.4/proc/m4/convert.m4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1154 Sep 11 20:08 /usr/lib/ gtkmozembedmm-1.4/proc/m4/convert_gtkmozembedmm.m4
Shouldn't that be /usr/include/gtkmozembedmm/ ? not sure where the m4 files should go, but /usr/lib/ seems wrong...
W: gtkmozembedmm-devel no-documentation
This can be ignored.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-09-14 10:50 EST ------- * updated spec: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/gtkmozembedmm.spec * script to build the tarball from cvs: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/gtkmozembedmm-cvs.sh * updated SRPM: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs2...
1. Well, I made a little script that download a cvs snapshot and compress it in a tarball. I'm not sure why, but md5sum between 2 snapshots are always different though diff -Naur between 2 directories shows no difference. 2. done 3. looks like m4 macros are mostly located in /usr/include, so I put them there. 4. Since i automated the generation of the tarball, I made minor changes like enabling maintainer mode in %configure, this is necessary to enable specific parts of makefiles without them the build will fail. (So I had to add libtool as a BR) 5. builds in mock for fc5 i386 & fc6 i386 configuration, new package seems working, rpmlint output: W: gtkmozembedmm-devel no-documentation
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-09-15 20:15 EST ------- In reply to comment #4:
1. Yeah, the md5 is going to be diffrent because you change some files and copy them, which changes timestamps. Also, the autogen.sh run each time will have diffrent timestamps, so it's not going to match. Everything looks good with diff however, so I don't think thats a blocker.
2-4: ok.
5. I am getting failures in mock... fc6/i386 gives me:
./configure: line 19134: syntax error near unexpected token `5.6.0' ./configure: line 19134: `GLIBMM_CHECK_PERL(5.6.0)' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.78710 (%build)
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-09-17 04:47 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=136472) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=136472&action=vie...) mock root.log
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-09-17 04:48 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=136473) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=136473&action=vie...) mock build.log
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-09-17 04:51 EST ------- Weird, I tried twice to build the package under Mock for this configuration and it never failedwith the same src.rpm. $ mock -r fedora-6-i386-core.cfg gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs20060817-4.fc5.src.rpm init clean prep This may take a while setup build ending done Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/result
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-09-17 08:09 EST ------- I generated a new src.rpm with rpmbuild -bs : http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs2... Here are the packages generated by mock thanks to the previous src.rpm http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs2... http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs2... http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-devel-1.4.... http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-debuginfo-...
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-09-17 11:48 EST ------- Very odd. I have downloaded your src.rpm from comment #9 and unpacked it and fired off some mock builds on it. Will see if that works or if I can see the issue anywhere else.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-09-17 12:57 EST ------- ok, Not sure if I had a corrupt autocache or a stale mirror or what... It now builds fine on fc6/i386.
I am getting a diffrent build error on fc6/x86_64 however:
Making all in src make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gtkmozembedmm- 1.4.2.cvs20060817/gtkmozembed/src' /usr/lib/glibmm-2.4/proc/gmmproc -I ../../tools/m4 --defs . webcontrol . ./../ gtkmozembedmm make[2]: /usr/lib/glibmm-2.4/proc/gmmproc: Command not found make[2]: *** No rule to make target `/usr/lib/glibmm-2.4/proc/ generate_wrap_init.pl', needed by `../gtkmozembedmm/wrap_init.cc'. Stop. make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... make[2]: *** [.stamps/stamp-webcontrol] Error 127 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gtkmozembedmm- 1.4.2.cvs20060817/gtkmozembed/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gtkmozembedmm- 1.4.2.cvs20060817/gtkmozembed' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.44057 (%build)
Looks like it's looking for proc/gmmproc in lib instead of lib64...
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-09-22 18:08 EST ------- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker, as submitter was sponsored in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193109
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-09-29 13:49 EST ------- Any ideas on the failure from comment #11?
I can provide access to a x86_64 test machine if you would like...
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-11-11 20:37 EST ------- Ping. Have you had a chance to look at the error in comment #11 ?
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-11-12 13:17 EST ------- - new spec http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/gtkmozembedmm.spec - new srpm http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs2... I finally someone for testing the build on x86_64, it seems to build now. It still build under Mock. - rpmlint output $ rpmlint -i gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs20060817-5.fc7.i386.rpm $ rpmlint -i gtkmozembedmm-devel-1.4.2.cvs20060817-5.fc7.i386.rpm W: gtkmozembedmm-devel no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@gmx.net 2006-11-12 13:51 EST ------- You mix firefox-devel and gecko-devel in a questionable way. The first provides the latter. Please verify your BuildRequires.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-11-12 15:58 EST ------- I had uploaded the wrong src.rpm (and the same for the spec), they have been re-uploaded (same links as above) For BR, it will depend on mozilla-devel for FC5 and gecko-devel for FC6+, no more firefox-devel.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-11-12 21:30 EST ------- The BR's look ok to me with the re-uploaded version...
Is the Requires correct though?
Requires: gecko-libs = 1.5.0.8
Why hardcoding the version there? This causes it to break on devel, since devel has firefox 2.0 in it, which doesn't provide that version of gecko-libs.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-11-13 03:49 EST ------- Yes, I asked Remi Collet (from Extras) about it, it avoids breaking packages depending on Gecko during updates. Anyway, the bindings have to be rebuilt each time gecko is updated. I will increase the versionning for devel when it will be uploaded on cvs.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-11-16 13:21 EST ------- ok. I guess that makes sense. It will mean that you will have to make sure and keep on top of rebuilding this package against gecko updates, but as long as you are willing to do so thats not a blocker. (As a side note you have a comment in the spec talking about firefox-devel, should update to say gecko-devel).
I don't see any further issues/blockers, so this package is APPROVED.
Please close this NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built.
Also, consider doing a review on a waiting package to help spread out the reviewing load.
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: gtkmozembedmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106
karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From karlthered@gmail.com 2006-11-22 02:43 EST ------- I have imported and built the package yesterday. Closed.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org