Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: itstool - Translate XML files with PO using ITS rules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989
Summary: Review Request: itstool - Translate XML files with PO using ITS rules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shaunm@gnome.org 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://people.gnome.org/~shaunm/itstool-rpm/itstool.spec SRPM URL: http://people.gnome.org/~shaunm/itstool-rpm/itstool-1.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: ITS Tool is a Python program that converts between XML and PO using rules from the W3C Internationalization Tag Set (ITS). It's slated to replace xml2po from gnome-doc-utils in GNOME.
This is the first time I've made an RPM for others to use. I tried to follow the guidelines on the wiki. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong.
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=702989
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mariobl@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-05-09 13:57:33 EDT --- Hi Shaun,
if you are new to the packaging maintainers, I assume you need a sponsor, according to the guidelines. Am I right? If yes, you should set the flag "FE-NEEDSPONSOR" in "Blocks:".
Although I'm unable to act as a sponsor, I will have a look at your package anyway.
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=702989
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-05-09 14:12:00 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3060852
$ rpmlint -v * itstool.src: I: checking itstool.src: I: checking-url http://itstool.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) itstool.src: I: checking-url http://files.itstool.org/itstool/itstool-1.0.1.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) itstool.noarch: I: checking itstool.noarch: I: checking-url http://itstool.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) itstool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary itstool itstool.spec: I: checking-url http://files.itstool.org/itstool/itstool-1.0.1.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Are you planning to add a manual page to itstool? Well, it is not mandatory, but would be fine to have it. Good old xml2po has a manpage, terribly outdated, but it has.
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=702989
Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #3 from Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org 2011-05-09 14:19:27 EDT --- Thanks. I will need a sponsor. I've mostly only worked on the source tarball side of things.
I'll add a manpage for 1.0.2. I think other distros are more strict about 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=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |caillon@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-05-24 11:23:36 EDT --- I'm able to sponsor, taking the 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=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-05-24 12:54:21 EDT --- Seems good with, but a few small issues are outlined at the end of this large comment.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. See comments below. MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 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 must be included in %doc. OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. NA MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. NA MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. NA MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. NA MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). NA MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. NA MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} NA MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. NA MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK
Packaging Guidelines notes: * The BuildRoot tag can be dropped, as well as the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag * The %clean section can be dropped, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
* This package requires python at runtime, but the built package does not require python. This is a MUST fix. The preferred way to fix this in Fedora is to change your shebang to "#!/usr/bin/python -s" instead of "#!/usr/bin/env python", and rpm will automatically pick up the dep (right now, it picks up a dep for /usr/bin/env instead). The alternative would be to manually add an explicit Requires line. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires (as an additional sidenote: dmalcolm tells me that "#!/usr/bin/python -s" for all system binaries is likely to become a Fedora 16 goal, so would be nice to get that done 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=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(shaunm@gnome.org)
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=702989
Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(shaunm@gnome.org) |
--- Comment #6 from Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org 2011-05-26 16:27:29 EDT --- Regarding the License field in the spec file, the COPYING file basically says "GPLv3+, but the ITS files can be modified and redistributed without restriction." I do have COPYING and COPYING.GPL3 in %doc, but should License say something else to reflect this? I assumed the License field is from a semi-controlled vocabulary. Presumably there are other packages that are GPL with exceptions.
I added a man page to git. rpmlint did warn about that.
I've always been told to use /usr/bin/env for python, perl, etc for portability. I don't know of any modern Linux distro that doesn't put python in /usr/bin, but I don't know about other Unixes. I guess I could just change it and wait for bug reports. (I notice that xml2po uses /usr/bin/python in the shebang, and I don't remember ever seeing a bug about that.)
So here's what I'll do:
* Drop BuildRoot, the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install, and %clean * Change the shebang to "/usr/bin/python -s" upstream * Roll a 1.0.2 with the shebang change and the man page * Do a new spec file and SRPM with these changes
Anything else?
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=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |182235(FE-Legal)
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-05-26 17:00:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
Regarding the License field in the spec file, the COPYING file basically says "GPLv3+, but the ITS files can be modified and redistributed without restriction." I do have COPYING and COPYING.GPL3 in %doc, but should License say something else to reflect this? I assumed the License field is from a semi-controlled vocabulary. Presumably there are other packages that are GPL with exceptions.
It said under the terms of your choosing, and leaving the spec License field at GPLv3+ would comply. If you wanted to change the spec file to reflect that, it's probably "GPLv3+ and Copyright Only" but I'm not entirely sure that this is a) correct and b) necessary.
Redirecting to spot and FE-Legal for the definitive answer, though.
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=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-06-03 14:21:00 EDT --- Spot, ping!
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=702989
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2011-06-03 14:38:02 EDT --- I think License: GPLv3+ is appropriate here, unless you foresee a need for Fedora to distribute the ITS definitions under different terms.
Lifting FE-Legal.
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=702989
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-06-03 18:01:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9)
I think License: GPLv3+ is appropriate here, unless you foresee a need for Fedora to distribute the ITS definitions under different terms.
Cool, that's what I thought.
(In reply to comment #6)
So here's what I'll do:
- Drop BuildRoot, the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install, and %clean
- Change the shebang to "/usr/bin/python -s" upstream
- Roll a 1.0.2 with the shebang change and the man page
- Do a new spec file and SRPM with these changes
Anything else?
I think that's it, once you provide a new spec/srpm for those, I'll approve the package and sponsor you.
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=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zali@redhat.com
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-06-14 11:50:20 EDT --- *** Bug 713161 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=702989
--- Comment #12 from Zeeshan Ali zali@redhat.com 2011-06-14 15:18:25 EDT --- Yikes, I should have checked if anyone else is already on this before starting. :( Anyways, my packages are here, just in case you want to have a look for some reason: http://zeenix.fedorapeople.org/
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=702989
--- Comment #13 from Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org 2011-06-27 15:19:03 EDT --- http://people.gnome.org/~shaunm/itstool-rpm/itstool.spec http://people.gnome.org/~shaunm/itstool-rpm/itstool-1.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
I made a new release upstream. It has some new features and some fixes, but notably for the RPM, it now contains a man page, and the shebang is #!/usr/bin/python -s. I updated the spec file to remove the build root and clean stuff, per the packaging guidelines, and added the man page to the spec file.
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=702989
Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-06-27 16:06:58 EDT --- Thanks for the update.
F15 Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3164638
There's still an rpmlint issue, but that aside, I think this is ready for approval.
itstool.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-1 ['1.1.0-1.fc15', '1.1.0-1']
Please fix that by updating the rpm changelog before importing into git.
Approving and sponsoring.
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=702989
--- Comment #15 from Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org 2011-06-27 16:22:20 EDT --- Added the changelog entry in the spec file and replaced the spec and srpm files at the above URLs.
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=702989
Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mclasen@redhat.com
--- Comment #16 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com 2011-07-05 11:02:19 EDT --- Shaun, do you know what to do next here, or do you need help ?
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=702989
--- Comment #17 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-07-05 14:25:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15)
Added the changelog entry in the spec file and replaced the spec and srpm files at the above URLs.
Each time you change anything in the spec file, please bump the release number and build a new package. There is no other way to track your changes really. The %changelog has always to reflect what you did, means, consecutive changelog entries may not have the same release number.
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=702989
--- Comment #18 from Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com 2011-07-05 14:46:55 EDT --- Mario, FWIW, I'm sponsoring and have already explained this to Shaun out of band. In this case, there was no %changelog entry whatsoever for the new changes, so I asked him to simply add one and replace the existing spec.
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=702989
--- Comment #19 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-07-05 14:50:51 EDT --- OK, sorry for the noise ;)
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=702989
Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #20 from Shaun McCance shaunm@gnome.org 2011-07-05 15:40:50 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: itstool Short Description: Translate XML with PO files using rules from the W3C ITS Owners: shaunm Branches: f15 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=702989
--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-07-05 16:07:35 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=702989
Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-07-15 21:37:47
--- Comment #22 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com 2011-07-15 21:37:47 EDT --- Build is done, so closing the bug
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=702989
Andrea Veri andrea.veri@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andrea.veri@gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #23 from Andrea Veri andrea.veri@gmail.com 2012-04-17 07:56:29 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: itstool New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: averi InitialCC: averi
I'll help mclasen maintaining itstool in both EL5 and EL6. He'll soon confirm my commit accesses on the relevant git branch.
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=702989
--- Comment #24 from Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com 2012-04-17 07:59:34 EDT --- You should be all set with commit access.
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=702989
--- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-17 09:28:19 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla