[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jan 16 00:54:36 UTC 2012
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389
Scott Tsai <scottt.tw at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |scottt.tw at gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |scottt.tw at gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Scott Tsai <scottt.tw at gmail.com> 2012-01-15 19:54:32 EST ---
I've made a copy of the SPEC with all my recommendations applied here:
http://scottt.tw/fedora/libwebp.spec for your convenience.
1. Please update to libwebp-0.1.3
Upstream released libwebp-0.1.3 in September 2011.
I've verified that simply bumping the version in the SPEC file works with the
new tarball:
http://code.google.com/p/webp/downloads/detail?name=libwebp-0.1.3.tar.gz&can=2&q=
0.1.3 contains an ABI compatibility break and soname change from 0.1.2
(libwebp.so.0.0.0 -> libwebp.so.2.0.0)
Thus packaging 0.1.3 directly avoids a soname change in the future.
2. Package the SWIG generated Java bindings:
@@ -6,8 +6,11 @@ URL: http://webmproject.org/
Summary: Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
# Additional IPR is licensed as well. See PATENTS file for details
License: BSD
-Source: http://webp.googlecode.com/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel libpng-devel libtool
+Source0: http://webp.googlecode.com/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source1: libwebp_jni_example.java
+BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel libpng-devel libtool swig
+BuildRequires: java-devel
+BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
%description
WebP is an image format that does lossy compression of digital
@@ -39,6 +42,16 @@ container based on RIFF. Webmasters, web developers and
browser
developers can use WebP to compress, archive and distribute digital
images more efficiently.
+%package java
+Group: Development/Libraries
+Summary: Java bindings for libwebp, a library for the WebP format
+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+Requires: java
+Requires: jpackage-utils
+
+%description java
+Java bindings for libwebp.
+
%prep
%setup -q
@@ -48,10 +61,35 @@ mkdir -p m4
%configure --disable-static
make %{?_smp_mflags}
+# swig generated Java bindings
+cp %{SOURCE1} .
+cd swig
+rm -rf libwebp.jar libwebp_java_wrap.c
+mkdir -p java/com/google/webp
+swig -ignoremissing -I../src -java \
+ -package com.google.webp \
+ -outdir java/com/google/webp \
+ -o libwebp_java_wrap.c libwebp.i
+
+gcc %{optflags} -shared -fPIC -fno-strict-aliasing \
+ -I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include \
+ -I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include/linux \
+ -I../src \
+ -L../src/.libs -lwebp libwebp_java_wrap.c \
+ -o libwebp_jni.so
+
+cd java
+javac com/google/webp/libwebp.java
+jar cvf ../libwebp.jar com/google/webp/*.class
+
%install
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
find "%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}" -type f -name "*.la" -delete
+# swig generated Java bindings
+mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}-java
+cp swig/*.jar swig/*.so %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}-java/
+
%post -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
@@ -69,6 +107,10 @@ find "%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}" -type f -name "*.la"
-delete
%{_includedir}/*
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
+%files java
+%doc libwebp_jni_example.java
+%{_libdir}/%{name}-java/
The libwebp_jni_example.java file is attached to this bug.
3. Fix the dist tag:
-Release: 1%{dist}
+Release: 1%{?dist}
4. Fix the version number in the chanagelog:
-* Wed May 25 2011 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> - 1.0.2-1
+* Wed May 25 2011 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> - 0.1.3-1
As pointed out by Veeti.
5. Drop autoconf, automake from BuildRequires as pointed out by Veeti.
libtool already requires both autoconf and automake.
-BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel, libpng-devel autoconf automake libtool
+BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel libpng-devel libtool
6. Fix libwebp-devel's Require line as pointed out by Veeti:
-Requires: %{name} = %version
+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
7. Enclose RPM macros with curly braces as pointed out by Veeti:
-make install DESTDIR=%buildroot
-find "%buildroot/%_libdir" -type f -name "*.la" -delete
+make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
+find "%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}" -type f -name "*.la" -delete
-%post -n %name -p /sbin/ldconfig
+%post -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
-%postun -n %name -p /sbin/ldconfig
+%postun -n %{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
%files tools
-%_bindir/*
-%_mandir/man*/*
+%{_bindir}/*
+%{_mandir}/man*/*
%files -n %{name}
%doc README PATENTS COPYING NEWS AUTHORS
-%_libdir/%{name}*.so.*
+%{_libdir}/%{name}*.so.*
%files devel
-%_libdir/%{name}*.so
-%_includedir/*
-%_libdir/pkgconfig/*
+%{_libdir}/%{name}*.so
+%{_includedir}/*
+%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[-]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
Note: Only applicable for EL-5
The pkgconfig dependency is automatically picked up for Fedora.
This is fine.
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[-]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
All rpmlint output are justified.
These are not really spelling errors.
rpmlint libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web,
Webb
libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy,
flossy
libwebp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code,
codes
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P, Web, Webb
libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy,
flossy
libwebp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code,
codes
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint libwebp-devel-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P,
Web, Webb
libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss,
glossy, flossy
libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex,
code, codes
No documentation in libwebp-devel is fine.
libwebp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
These are not really spelling errors.
rpmlint libwebp-tools-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US WebP -> Web P,
Web, Webb
libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss,
glossy, flossy
libwebp-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex,
code, codes
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/scottt/work/libwebp/fedora/libwebp-0.1.3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 254d4670e14e9ed881f0536b006ab336
MD5SUM upstream package : 254d4670e14e9ed881f0536b006ab336
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3704717
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
I'll approve this package once points one through seven above are addressed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list