Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: flamerobin - Graphical client for Firebird
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495412
Summary: Review Request: flamerobin - Graphical client for Firebird Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: makowski.fedora@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://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec SRPM URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10.src.rpm Description: FlameRobin is a database administration tool for Firebird DBMS based on wxgtk toolkit
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |488100
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=495412
Zarko zarko.pintar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zarko.pintar@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Zarko zarko.pintar@gmail.com 2009-04-16 05:48:38 EDT --- Hello, I am not a sponsor, so I can not take a sponsorship of you, but I can make an unofficial review.
At first, when writing a package from scratch, you should base your spec file on the Fedora spec file template, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rpmdevtools command: rpmdev-newspec
For naming, licensing and other conventions, see&study Package Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
For using macros inside od spec, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
Build fails with this error: usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lfbclient
please, fix this...
regards, Zarko
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=495412
--- Comment #2 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-04-18 14:31:00 EDT --- Thanks but it cannot be builded without firebird-devel : BuildRequires: firebird-devel
please re check it, I upgraded both spec and src.rpm
And that package is a Mandriva -> Fedora move, it is not writen from scratch ;)
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=495412
--- Comment #3 from Zarko zarko.pintar@gmail.com 2009-04-18 16:52:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
And that package is a Mandriva -> Fedora move, it is not writen from scratch ;)
That is the problem. Some macros do not exist on Fedora. Exp: %{_iconsdir}/%{name}.png %{_liconsdir}/%{name}.png %{_miconsdir}/%{name}.png
I think that we do not have these macros on Fedora. Check it.
For desktop files you must do validate (it is commented for now)
I do not currently ttied build this package, but I will. I see that the Firebird is in the review process, too, so I must build it in my personal repo for testing...
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=495412
--- Comment #4 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-04-18 18:14:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
That is the problem. Some macros do not exist on Fedora. Exp: %{_iconsdir}/%{name}.png %{_liconsdir}/%{name}.png %{_miconsdir}/%{name}.png
I think that we do not have these macros on Fedora. Check it.
checked no problem
For desktop files you must do validate (it is commented for now)
done
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |flamerobin
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=495412
--- Comment #5 from Zarko zarko.pintar@gmail.com 2009-04-21 09:35:27 EDT --- * Validation of .desktop files needs this: BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils so include this BR into spec
* Macro names: %{_iconsdir} %{_liconsdir} %{_miconsdir}
do not pass in my mock build, please use standard macros from here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
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=495412
--- Comment #6 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-04-21 17:13:32 EDT --- sorry I really don't understand if I make a rpm --showrc , these macros are there (f10)
and if not %{_iconsdir}, %{_liconsdir}, %{_miconsdir}, then what else ? Have you a suggestion ?
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=495412
--- Comment #7 from Zarko zarko.pintar@gmail.com 2009-04-22 02:22:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
sorry I really don't understand if I make a rpm --showrc , these macros are there (f10)
and if not %{_iconsdir}, %{_liconsdir}, %{_miconsdir}, then what else ? Have you a suggestion ?
I currently have three Fedora installations on my PC Two of F10 and one of F11 branches
Only at one of my Fedora branches I have these macros defined, so I suggest to you that change these macros with:
%{_iconsdir} change to: %{_datadir}/icons %{_liconsdir} change to: %{_datadir}/icons/large %{_miconsdir} change to: %{_datadir}/icons/mini
Or, why you do not put these icons to standard dirs, like:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/%{name}.png
and reformat install and convert commands at %install section to use these dirs, and after that simply refresh icons cache?
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=495412
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-04-22 10:25:03 EDT --- Notes:
On my system _iconsdir or so is defined, however ------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ grep %_iconsdir /etc/rpm/macros.* /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage:%_iconsdir %{_datadir}/icons [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ grep -l %_iconsdir /etc/rpm/macros.* | xargs rpm -qf jpackage-utils-1.7.5-2.7.fc11.noarch ------------------------------------------------------- i.e. only when jpackage-utils (Java related package) is installed, these macros can be used. So if you want to use macros such as _iconsdir, "BuildRequires: jpackage-utils" is needed to make it sure that %_sysconfdir/rpm/macros.jpackage surely exists.
However - This package does not seem to be related to Java - So adding "BR: jpackage-utils" just to define %_iconsdir or so is not desired - Also almost all packages on Fedora installing files under %_datadir/icons/ use %_datadir/icons, not %_iconsdir
So replacing %_iconsdir with %_datadir/icons is much preferable.
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=495412
--- Comment #9 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-04-25 10:47:54 EDT --- ok, upgraded Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec SRPM URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin-0.9.2-1.fc10.src.rpm
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=495412
Bug 495412 depends on bug 488100, which changed state.
Bug 488100 Summary: Review Request: firebird - Firebird SQL database management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488100
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE
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=495412
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|488100(firebird) |
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=495412
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |498790
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=495412
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-05-03 08:11:32 EDT --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I sponsored Philippe.
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=495412
Bug 495412 depends on bug 498790, which changed state.
Bug 498790 Summary: Review Request: firebird - SQL relational database management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498790
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=495412
--- Comment #11 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-05-07 17:25:30 EDT --- since firebird is there now :
builds are ok for F-10 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1341293
but can you help me to find why it failed for Epel ? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1341334&name=build.log
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 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=495412
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-05-08 04:53:31 EDT --- Please, don't raise fedora-review flags for packages submitted by you (this is a reviewer's work, not submitter's).
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=495412
--- Comment #13 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-05-08 05:50:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
Please, don't raise fedora-review flags for packages submitted by you (this is a reviewer's work, not submitter's).
oups 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=495412
--- Comment #14 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-05-11 16:03:45 EDT --- I rewrite it
Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec SRPM URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10.src.rpm
and this time build is ok http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1349033 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1349026
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=495412
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-05-23 02:59:27 EDT --- I'll review it.
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=495412
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=495412
--- Comment #16 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-06-07 06:28:46 EDT --- Notes:
* Use full patch for Source0:
http://dfn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/flamerobin/flamerobin-0.9.2-src.ta...
* remove --mandir explicit parameter passing (%configure already makes it)
* change %makeinstall to "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
* this line is not needed at all "mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications"
Other things looks sane. Here is a koji scratch build withall these changes:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397625
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495412
--- Comment #17 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-06-07 14:56:48 EDT --- ok, changes made : Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec
koji scratch builds are ok : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397855 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397860 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397864
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495412
--- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-06-10 07:08:11 EDT --- REVIEW:
+ rpmlint is almost silent - it only complains about empty sections, which should be removed (however it's a purely cosmetic change):
[petro@Workplace Desktop]$ rpmlint flamerobin-* flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%post flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%postun flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%posttrans 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [petro@Workplace Desktop]$
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines with one remaining issue - doc-files are listed twice. First - as %doc, second - as a contents of %{_datadir}/%{name}/docs. I advice you to add
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/docs
at the end of the %install section. Btw, maybe it's better to list docs as "%doc docs/*" rather than "%doc docs" ?
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See links above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. There is a single place where the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used instead of %{buildroot} - this may be ignored. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No large documentation files. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed (checked with desktop-file-validate in the %install section). + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Conclusion:
* consider to remove empty sections from spec-file * remove duplicated docs from $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}
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=495412
--- Comment #19 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-06-10 09:49:27 EDT --- ok * consider to remove empty sections from spec-file made * remove duplicated docs from $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name} made
I also removed the no need BuildRequires:ImageMagick
changes made : Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1403525
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=495412
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-06-10 10:03:20 EDT --- Ok,
APPROVED.
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #21 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-06-10 11:47:17 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: flamerobin Short Description: database administration tool for Firebird DBMS based on wxgtk toolkit Owners: pmakowski Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-4 EL-5
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=495412
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs-
--- Comment #22 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-06-10 17:09:39 EDT --- I see no account "pmakowski" in the account system. Please correct, submit a new CVS request and set the fedora-cvs flag back to '?'.
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #23 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-06-10 18:17:03 EDT --- sorry for the typo
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: flamerobin Short Description: database administration tool for Firebird DBMS based on wxgtk toolkit Owners: makowski Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-4 EL-5
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=495412
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #24 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-06-10 18:47:28 EDT --- CVS done.
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=495412
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-11 03:08:11 EDT --- flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc11
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=495412
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-11 03:08:17 EDT --- flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10
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=495412
Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=495412
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-15 22:04:49 EDT --- flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=495412
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |0.9.2-0.fc10
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=495412
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-15 22:27:02 EDT --- flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=495412
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0.9.2-0.fc10 |0.9.2-0.fc11
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org