https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334903 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx CC| |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- I have a few more comments: First, the package currently doesn't build. It looks like it's trying to fetch stuff over the network - this is not allowed for official package builds, which run isolated from the internet in a container with a separate network namespace. If you took inspiration from the unofficial COPR (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pgdev/), the build there only works because COPR allows overriding the network isolation, which official builds can't. > %global debug_package %{nil} This is a red flag for a package with "native" executables. You'll need to make sure that the zig executable is built *with* debug symbols. Not sure how to tell that to the zig compiler, but there should be a flag to do it. For the common description (%project_description macro), I would recommend this syntax: %global project_description %{expand: ... ... ...} This avoids having to escape newlines. > Source0: https://release.files.ghostty.org/%{version}/%{name}-source.tar.gz This is kind of bad too. Does upstream not provide "versioned" tarballs (i.e. something like "ghostty-1.0.0-source.tar.gz")? Having the tarball name be the same for different versions will cause headaches for packaging. > BuildRequires: zig >= 0.13.0, zig < 0.14.0, pandoc, minisign Please split this across lines (and I would also recommend to keep the list alphabetical), i.e. BuildRequires: (zig >= 0.13 with zig < 0.14~) BuildRequires: pandoc BuildRequires: minisign BuildRequires: pkgconfig(fontconfig) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(freetype2) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(glib-2.0) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk4) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(harfbuzz) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libadwaita-1) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpng) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(oniguruma) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib-ng) (...) BuildRequires: fdupes BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils (...) and the same for the bundled Provides too: Provides: bundled(font(CodeNewRoman)) Provides: bundled(font(CozetteVector)) Provides: bundled(font(Inconsolata)) Provides: bundled(font(JuliaMono)) Provides: bundled(font(JetBrainsMonoNerdFont)) Provides: bundled(font(JetBrainsMonoNoNF)) Provides: bundled(font(KawkabMono)) Provides: bundled(font(Lilex)) Provides: bundled(font(MonaspaceNeon)) Provides: bundled(font(NotoColorEmoji)) Provides: bundled(font(NotoEmoji)) Provides: bundled(glslang) = 14.2.0 Provides: bundled(spirv-cross) = 13.1.1 > # There are more build dependencies statically linked > # listed in the build.zig.zon This is not enough - bundling is OK (and probably unavoidable in an immature library ecosystem such as zig's), but you *MUST* specify bundled dependencies in RPM metadata too, so probably something like: Provides: bundled(zig(mitchellh/libxev)) = 0~gitdb6a52b Provides: bundled(zig(mitchellh/mach-glfw)) = 0~git37c2995 (etc.) Looks like these dependencies are all git snapshots :( There's also a lot of zig bindings for C libraries (in ./pkg/). According to the README, they're subprojects that are (for now) developed as part of ghostty, so that should be fine. > %global pubkey RWQlAjJC23149WL2sEpT/l0QKy7hMIFhYdQOFy0Z7z7PbneUgvlsnYcV > %global _build_flags %{?with_simdutf:-fsys=simdutf} --system "/tmp/offline-cache/p" -Dcpu=baseline -Doptimize=ReleaseFast Please define macros at the top of the spec file, and not under the shell scriptlets. I didn't even know that this is possible. :) > Release: 4%{?dist} > %changelog > %autochangelog This is mixing rpmautospec with non-rpmautpspec constructs, and will cause problems. Either use explicit Release and changelog, or let rpmautospec handle both of them. Mix-and-match is not a good idea, and will give weird results. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334903 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202334903%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
