Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 989960 (qtdbf)
| Summary: | Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Eugene A. Pivnev <ti.eugene> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christopher Meng <i> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | i, kevin, notting, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | i:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | Trivial | ||
| Fixed In Version: | qtdbf-0.9.9-3.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-02-17 09:37:44 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 928937 | ||
|
Description
Eugene A. Pivnev
2013-07-30 08:22:22 UTC
1. Please use %qmake_qt4 if possible. 2. Replace pkgconfig(QtGui) with qt4-devel 3. Summary should be "A simple DBF viewer and editor" (quoted from github homepage) 4. Change License to GPLv3+ 5. Remove INSTALL file in %doc. Package is good, once fixed and upload second version, I'll approve. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > 1. Please use %qmake_qt4 if possible. Not works for me (F19): + %qmake_qt4 PREFIX=/usr /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aFeduB: line 29: fg: no job control error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aFeduB (%build) 2..5 fixed. New spec: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf.spec Old spec: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf-0.9.9-1.spec srpm: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf-0.9.9-2.fc19.src.rpm Oh sorry, I forgot to quote that this macro is in updates-testing but not stable, so it's useless now..
However this macro is:
/usr/lib/qt4/bin/qmake \
QMAKE_CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables}" \
QMAKE_CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables}" \
QMAKE_LFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro }"
Make sure the optflags and ldflags.
APPROVED.
I'll wait for this macro in stable and will rebuild all of my qmake-based packages alltogether. Ok? Thenk you for fastest review in the world. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: qtdbf Short Description: A simple DBF viewer and editor Owners: tieugene Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: (In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #4) > I'll wait for this macro in stable and will rebuild all of my qmake-based > packages alltogether. Ok? Ok. > Thenk you for fastest review in the world. Never mind, this software is tiny and bugless. Besides, I forgot to say one thing: I found help folder in datadir, not sure if it should be placed there? I think we should use %doc help/*. Waiting for your idea. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > Besides, I forgot to say one thing: > I found help folder in datadir, not sure if it should be placed there? > > I think we should use %doc help/*. > > Waiting for your idea. No, this is built-in help (F1) and must be in fixed path (hardcoded in sources) a kind of static data. In all linuxes. Got it! What does the program do if they are missing? When marking them %doc they may get excluded in a --excludedocs installation. That's a corner-case, but the program must not crash when the help files are missing, for example. The files are HTML plus images, so theoretically they could be marked %doc. (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #9) > What does the program do if they are missing? When marking them %doc they > may get excluded in a --excludedocs installation. That's a corner-case, but > the program must not crash when the help files are missing, for example. The > files are HTML plus images, so theoretically they could be marked %doc. 1. They can't be missing - they are part of package. As RH-based place docs int /usr/share/doc/<name>-<version>/ - some other distros (deb-based?) can place docs into /us/share/doc/<name>/ 2. According to your proposition icons must be place into /usr/share/icons/*/ ? So - as icons as help texts (help - not doc) as translations are simple static data. From other side: %doc are optional. Helps are mandatory (in this case). We're talking past eachother: > 1. They can't be missing - they are part of package. They _could_ be excluded, _if_ they were marked %doc. Currently, they aren't marked %doc. That's why I commented on the implications of marking them %doc when they are [strictly] required at run-time by a Help menu. > 2. According to your proposition icons must be place into /usr/share/icons/*/ ? That's nothing I've proposed. (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #13) > We're talking past eachother: > > > 1. They can't be missing - they are part of package. > > They _could_ be excluded, _if_ they were marked %doc. Currently, they aren't > marked %doc. That's why I commented on the implications of marking them %doc > when they are [strictly] required at run-time by a Help menu. Ok, in reality they are not _strictly_ required. Now qtdbf can work without them (showing "Help file missing\nNo such file or directory."). But now it's to hard (for devels) to use distro-specific doc path. They don't need to.
%doc %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/
would be enough. Remember, %doc does two different things depending on whether it is applied to absolute paths or local paths.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #15) > They don't need to. > > %doc %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/ > > would be enough. Remember, %doc does two different things depending on > whether it is applied to absolute paths or local paths. And what is the aim? That those files are properly marked as documentation, so you can query the RPM packages (or database) to list them. And then it's up to the user whether to view them in the program or with an external HTML reader. It is the reason. Ok - I will update spec before bodhi. Git done (by process-git-requests). qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc18 qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc19 qtdbf-0.9.9-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qtdbf-0.9.9-3.el6 qtdbf-0.9.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. qtdbf-0.9.9-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. qtdbf-0.9.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: qtdbf Short Description: A simple DBF viewer and editor Owners: tieugene Branches: epel Invalid branch epel requested. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: qtdbf Short Description: A simple DBF viewer and editor Owners: tieugene Branches: epel7 Git done (by process-git-requests). |