* missing Requires: gtkmm24

-bash-3.1# rpm -ivh jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        libatkmm-1.6.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386
        libgdkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386
        libgtkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386
        libpangomm-1.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386

(In reply to comment #1)
> * missing Requires: gtkmm24
> 
> -bash-3.1# rpm -ivh jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386.rpm
> error: Failed dependencies:
>         libatkmm-1.6.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386
>         libgdkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386
>         libgtkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386
>         libpangomm-1.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386

As written in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-0711805dd733fe3b31741e9d5236d72941a79d94

requires to satisfy libraries (in this case gtkmm24) is not needed to
be written explicitly. 
rpmbuild automatically adds those libraries'
dependency to rpm package and yum will automatically choose other
rpms to satisfy libraries' dependency.

With yum, yes it will be pulled. 

But installing by hand, like I did, the normal user can't guess which package
he/she needs.

ps: it's the same case as gputils in ktechlab.

(In reply to comment #3)
> With yum, yes it will be pulled. 
> 
> But installing by hand, like I did, the normal user can't guess which package
> he/she needs.

It may be, however, this is already true for other packages.
You can see this by 'rpm -q --whatrequires firefox', for example.
Lots of X related requirement are specified by only library dependency.

> 
> ps: it's the same case as gputils in ktechlab.
That is not true.
For Ktechlab case, the requirement gputils is added because the dependency
for gputils is not checked by library dependency but it requires binaries.
in gputils as ktechlab tries to call the binaries.

Well, upstream has updated source and changed versioning,
so will you check the following?

http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/jd-1.7.0-0.1.rc060921.src.rpm
http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/jd.spec

( I have not added gtkmm24 for Requires)

MUST Items:

- MUST: rpmlint's output is clean
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. 
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- No locales present
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it
is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries 
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix 
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 

SHOULD Items:

 - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING
 - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
 - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
 - SHOULD: No subpackages present.

Mamuro can you remove AUTHORS from %doc since it's empty ?

The case of missing gtkmm24, you are right. There will be less breakage via yum?

This is package has been APPROVED

Thank you for reviewing and approving this package!!
Now I will try to import this to cvs.

(In reply to comment #6) 
> Mamuro can you remove AUTHORS from %doc since it's empty ?
I think AUTHORS file is not included in jd (binary) package.

> 
> The case of missing gtkmm24, you are right. There will be less breakage via yum?
Yes. Actually I installed this (jd) by using yum as following.

When I want to review a package or to install some packages rebuilt by
myself,

* I usually rebuild it in mock, then the binary rpms are created.
* Then I usually move all binary rpms (which are rebuilt by me in mock) to
  some directory (for me /var/lib/mock/LOCALRPMS/i386)
* Move to /var/lib/mock/LOCALRPMS/i386, then I do:

chmod 0644 *rpm ; createrepo $(pwd) ; chmod 0755 repodata/ ; chmod 0644 repodata/*

  then repository metadata is created (createrepo rpm is in CORE).
* I have the following repository entry in /etc/yum.repos.d/LOCAL.repo:
--------------------------------------
[LOCAL]
name=LOCAL - locally created rpms
baseurl=file:///var/lib/mock/LOCALRPMS/i386/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=0
--------------------------------------

* Then I can install rpms rebuilt locally by me with yum.

Thanks :)
That's experience talking :)

Now:

* Rebuild for FE-devel succeeded.
* SyncNeeded is requiested for FE-5.

When rebuild for FE-5 ends, I will close this bug.

Rebuild for FE-5 ended.

Thank you for reviewing and approving this, again. Closing.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jd
New Branches: F-8
======================

cvs done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jd
New Branches: F-10
Owners: mtasaka

Early branching request.

cvs done

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jd
New Branches: F-11
Owners: mtasaka

Early branching request.

CVS Done

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jd
New Branches: F-12
Owners: mtasaka

Early branching request.

CVS done.