[Bug 1058019] New: Review Request: utf8proc - Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Bug ID: 1058019 Summary: Review Request: utf8proc - Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nalimilan@club.fr QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc.spec SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc-1.1.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: utf8proc is a library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings. Some features are Unicode normalization, stripping of default ignorable characters, case folding and detection of grapheme cluster boundaries. A special character mapping is available, which converts for example the characters “Hyphen” (U+2010), “Minus” (U+2212) and “Hyphen-Minus (U+002D, ASCII Minus) all into the ASCII minus sign, to make them equal for comparisons. The currently supported Unicode version is 5.0.0.
Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan
I'd like to include this package because it is a dependency of the Julia language that I am currently packaging (cf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517).
The Koji build is: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6455048
rpmlint prints a warning about the absence of a SONAME, but since upstream does not set one, and the project seems to be in maintainance mode, I'm not sure it's a good idea to choose an arbitrary version.
utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ignorable -> ignoble utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera utf8proc.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libutf8proc.so utf8proc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1040517
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 [Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orion@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Have you requested upstream to set a soname?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #2 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- I've just sent them a mail, let's see what they say.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- The Group tag for runtime libraries is "System Environment/Libraries" for many years.
Alternatively, especially for modern releases of Fedora, the tag can be omitted: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
%install %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #4 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- Thanks for the review. I've uploaded a new version which should fix this.
http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc.spec http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc-1.1.6-2.fc20.src.rpm
Upstream hasn't replied to my request about SONAME. Should I add one by hand, or is it OK as it is?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
Should I add one by hand, or is it OK as it is?
A missing soname is a reoccuring topic in the package review queue. The first question here would be "Which soname would you add, if upstream didn't support it"? No soname (and in particular no soversion) means, for example, that there can only be one libutf8proc.so at runtime, not multiple parallel installable versions (in case that would ever become necessary). All programs would depend on a non-versioned libutf8proc.so, which is a weak dependency. If a future upgrade touched the ABI of the library, it would break programs at runtime. Without upstream handling the API/ABI compatibility and the soname versioning, the responsibility to maintain an own soversioning scheme would be your burden as the packager.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #6 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- So you conclusion would be?... ;-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #7 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- If you think I shouldn't add a SONAME, then the version above is ready for review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #8 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- Ping? With openlibm ready for review (bug 1089500), we should now be able to get Julia packaged.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- This packaging draft https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jstanek/Draft_-_Downstream_.so_name_vers... was recently approved requiring SONAMEs, so please ping upstream again and add one if needed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #10 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- Pinged. I've found another e-mail address by digging the mail archives for another of their programs, but they're really hard to contact...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #11 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- In the absence of a reply from upstream, here's a new version adding the SONAME libutf8.so.0.1:
http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc.spec http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orion@cora.nwra.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- I think you probably should build and ship the ruby and pgsql bindings as well.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #13 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- Well, I have no experience with Ruby nor PostgreSQL, so I can build these files, but I have no idea where to put them and how to test them... I guess I would put them into separate packages?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- yes, separate packages. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby for the ruby stuff. Maybe find another postgresql package for help with that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #15 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- Sorry. I've looked at it, and I feel like it's really too much to learn for something I'm not interested in at the moment (heck, I've a PhD to finish), and I'm not even sure people will use. If somebody comes asking for Ruby support, I'll happily cooperate, but without more expertise it's just a waste of my time as I guess somebody with more experience would package it in a few minutes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #16 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: utf8proc Short Description: Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings Owners: nalimilan Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ fedora-cvs? |fedora-review?
--- Comment #17 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I set the review flag to + on accident when taking the review. Still need to do a formal review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #18 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- Orion, would you do the review? Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/utf8proc-1.1.6/1058019-utf8proc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm utf8proc-devel-1.1.6-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc21.src.rpm utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ignorable -> ignoble utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera utf8proc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation utf8proc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ignorable -> ignoble utf8proc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera utf8proc.src: W: strange-permission utf8proc-v1.1.6.tar.gz 0600L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint utf8proc-devel utf8proc utf8proc-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.public-software-group.org/utf8proc <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> utf8proc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ignorable -> ignoble utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera utf8proc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.public-software-group.org/utf8proc <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- utf8proc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libutf8proc.so.0.1()(64bit) utf8proc(x86-64)
utf8proc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- utf8proc-devel: utf8proc-devel utf8proc-devel(x86-64)
utf8proc: libutf8proc.so.0.1()(64bit) utf8proc utf8proc(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.public-software-group.org/pub/projects/utf8proc/v1.1.6/utf8proc-v... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fedc8fa78022eb8f0584fbc85c9f9571bcd7fd510de0ce16955289c42f4199e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fedc8fa78022eb8f0584fbc85c9f9571bcd7fd510de0ce16955289c42f4199e7
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1058019 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #20 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: utf8proc Short Description: Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings Upstream URL: http://www.public-software-group.org/utf8proc Owners: nalimilan Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #24 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimilan@club.fr --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-06-09 22:51:38
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19 |utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla