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=478504 --- Comment #31 from Ant Bryan <anthonybryan@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-20 16:30:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29) > The package doesn't build in Rawhide: > > Processing files: gget-epiphany-extension-0.0.4-7.fc11 > error: > File not found by glob: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gget-0.0.4-7.fc11.i386/usr/lib/epiphany/*/extensions/gget* > > The epiphany extension does not get build because configure only checks for > epiphany <= 2.24, but rawhide already has 2.25. So you need to patch > configure/configure.ac, I will attach a patch. # Detects Epiphany 2.26/2.25 for rawhide # http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572602 Patch0: gget-0.0.4-epiphany.patch > Issues that needed to be fixed according to comment # 23: > OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual > license. > OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. > OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a > %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with > desktop-file-install in the %install section. > OK - MUST: The packages do not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > OK - %changelog is complete now > OK - ChangeLog from source is included in %doc > OK - The desktop file contains a mimetype and update-mime-database is run > properly. > OK - Includes "Requires: dbus" now. > OK - Timestamp of Source0 is matching. > > $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/gget-* > gget.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gget.schemas > gget.i386: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/gget/metalink.py 0644 > gget.i386: E: no-binary > gget.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 68, tab: line 6) > gget-epiphany-extension.i386: W: no-documentation > gget-epiphany-extension.i386: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/epiphany/2.25/extensions/gget-epiphany.py 0644 > gget-epiphany-extension.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings. > > Two of these need fixing: > The non-executable-script error was my fault, please enable the chmod again. > The mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning is only cosmetic, but I suggest you > ether use spaces or tabs. Personally I prefer spaces, because tabs sometimes > look weird in (cvs) diffs. Re-added chmod, using spaces not tabs: rpmlint gget-0.0.4-8.fc10.i386.rpm gget-epiphany-extension-0.0.4-8.fc10.i386.rpm gget.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gget.schemas gget.i386: E: no-binary gget-epiphany-extension.i386: W: no-documentation gget-epiphany-extension.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. > Final Notes: > > The BR could be reworked to be more precise and more legible: > BuildRequires: pygtk2-devel >= 2.10.0 > BuildRequires: pygobject2-devel >= 2.12.0 > BuildRequires: gnome-python2-devel >= 2.16.0 > BuildRequires: gnome-python2-extras >= 2.14.2 > BuildRequires: dbus-python-devel >= 0.82 > BuildRequires: notify-python >= 0.1.1 > BuildRequires: intltool > This is what configure really checks for. The versions are not really needed > for Fedora because all supported releases are up to date, but they might be > helpful for people who want to rebuild the package for EPEL or other older > releases. Ok. > Please add "--add-category=FileTransfer" to desktop-file-install to allow > nested menus (we are working on a set of submenu-packages for user who have a > lot of stuff installed) Done. Should I ask upstream to add this as well? > The outstanding issues are only minor. Please do one more build to fix them and > to apply the patch and I will approve the package. Spec URL: http://pastebin.ca/1343199 SRPM URL: http://www.metalinker.org/mirrors/gget/gget-0.0.4-8.fc10.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review