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 1024993 - Review Request: lin_guider - Astronomical autoguiding program
Summary: Review Request: lin_guider - Astronomical autoguiding program
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-10-30 17:36 UTC by Lukash James
Modified: 2020-08-10 00:48 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-08-10 00:48:00 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Lukash James 2013-10-30 17:36:52 UTC
Spec URL: http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider.spec
SRPM URL: http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider-2.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Lin-guider is an astronomical autoguiding program for Linux.
It supports Philips, Logitech, uvc webcams, QHY5, QHY5-II-M, QHY5-II, 
QHY6, DSI2PRO astrocams for video and FTDI chip-based, parallel 
port-based (LPT) and QHY5, QHY6 astrocam devices for pulse guiding.
Fedora Account System Username: krypt3r
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR

It is my first package, so I need a sponsor.
Depends on the package 'firmware-ccd' (will be soon).

Comment 1 Lukash James 2013-10-30 17:51:06 UTC
SRPM URL changed to http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider-2.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm.bz2

Comment 2 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-10-30 18:07:20 UTC
Hi James.

(In reply to Lukash James from comment #1)
> SRPM URL changed to
> http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider-2.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm.bz2

- Why ?

For an handy review, it would be better to have two direct links, one for the .spec file and one for the .srpm .

- Why a manual installation ?
Does '%make DESTDIR="" install' not work ?

Comment 3 Lukash James 2013-10-30 18:22:58 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2)
> Hi James.
> 
> (In reply to Lukash James from comment #1)
> > SRPM URL changed to
> > http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider-2.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm.bz2
> 
> - Why ?

Hello. URL changed because I can't get RPM file from my hosting (only bzipped). May be I can edit the description?

> For an handy review, it would be better to have two direct links, one for
> the .spec file and one for the .srpm .
> 
> - Why a manual installation ?
> Does '%make DESTDIR="" install' not work ?
After building lin_guider binary started from build directory. Makefile haven't 'install' target.

PS. I am not an upstream developer.

Comment 4 Lukash James 2013-10-30 18:57:02 UTC
(In reply to Lukash James from comment #3)
> URL changed because I can't get RPM file from my hosting (only
> bzipped). May be I can edit the description?
Bug fixed with .htaccess. SRPM URL in 'Description' now valid.

Comment 5 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-10-30 19:23:27 UTC
(In reply to Lukash James from comment #3)
> > - Why a manual installation ?
> > Does '%make DESTDIR="" install' not work ?
> After building lin_guider binary started from build directory. Makefile
> haven't 'install' target.
> 
> PS. I am not an upstream developer.

Consider to leave a comment in the .spec file to describe the reasons of your choices, above all if they fall outside of packaging guidelines.

- You don't need of '%defattr(-, root, root)' line
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

- Please remove the lines

#ln -s /opt/gm_software/lin_guider/lg-wrapper.sh $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/lin_guider
#ln -s /opt/gm_software/lin_guider/man/man1/lin_guider.1.gz $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/lin_guider.1.gz
#ln -s /opt/gm_software/lin_guider/man/ru/man1/lin_guider.1.gz $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/ru/man1/lin_guider.1.gz
#install contrib/{mc.sh,mc.csh} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/profile.d

if they are not necessary.

- Your package provides a .desktop file; validate it in a %check section.
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

- Consider that starting from f20, every package docdir subdirectory will be unversioned. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs

Comment 6 Lukash James 2013-10-31 15:47:19 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> Consider to leave a comment in the .spec file to describe the reasons of
> your choices, above all if they fall outside of packaging guidelines.
> 
> - You don't need of '%defattr(-, root, root)' line
> - Please remove the lines
> - Your package provides a .desktop file; validate it in a %check section.
> - Consider that starting from f20, every package docdir subdirectory will be
> unversioned.
Thank you for your comments, Antonio. I fixed all of them (I think) and updated files in 'Description' section.
I have a question. Should I add new entries in %changelog if I fixed anything?

Comment 7 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-10-31 16:10:22 UTC
(In reply to Lukash James from comment #6)
> I have a question. Should I add new entries in %changelog if I fixed
> anything?

- You may update and replace the existing data line since your package is not built yet.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_per_Release

- Move the %check section after %install
  Was 'desktop-file-install' line already in your first .spec file ? If yes, desktop-file-validate is useless at this point. :P

'desktop-file-install' already validates the .desktop files automatically. 

- Move the line
  
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}

at the top.

Comment 8 Lukash James 2013-10-31 16:26:53 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
>   Was 'desktop-file-install' line already in your first .spec file ? If yes,
> desktop-file-validate is useless at this point. :P
No, 'install ...' was there :)

> 'desktop-file-install' already validates the .desktop files automatically. 
Oh, I see. I shall fix it.

> - Move the line
>   
> %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
> 
> at the top.
Before 'Name' and 'Version'? But will it work? 'Name' and 'Version' not defined in the first line.

Comment 9 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-10-31 19:05:07 UTC
(In reply to Lukash James from comment #8)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> >   Was 'desktop-file-install' line already in your first .spec file ? If yes,
> > desktop-file-validate is useless at this point. :P
> No, 'install ...' was there :)

So I'm sorry.

> > - Move the line
> >   
> > %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
> > 
> > at the top.
> Before 'Name' and 'Version'? But will it work? 'Name' and 'Version' not
> defined in the first line.

Good question. 
Yes, it works; I've used it myself with another one package. I think because 'rpm' itself defines numerous macros.
If you add "%dump" to the beginning of your spec file, process with rpm, you can  examine them.

Comment 10 Lukash James 2013-10-31 21:13:27 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> Good question. 
> Yes, it works; I've used it myself with another one package. I think because
> 'rpm' itself defines numerous macros.
> If you add "%dump" to the beginning of your spec file, process with rpm, you
> can  examine them.

Thanks. Spec & SRPM updated.

Comment 11 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-11-01 11:44:20 UTC
> It is my first package, so I need a sponsor.
> Depends on the package 'firmware-ccd' (will be soon).

I'm not a sponsor so I can't do an official review of your first packages (you need to be sponsored first of all).
However, I can to do an initial review to relieve your (prospective) sponsor of some of his work, as soon as even the 'firmware-ccd' package will be ready. 

For everything else it depends by yourself and by your sponsor (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group). :)

Comment 12 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:48:49 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 13 Package Review 2020-08-10 00:48:00 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.