https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005

--- Comment #1 from W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org --- This should revive #1160475 (that bug should be set as a duplicate of this one, according to the document at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews). I added a dependency on poppler-glib-devel, and I set OJBCFLAGS so that it is compatible with the security flags provided to GCC in new versions of Fedora.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005

--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- + ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib64 --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /usr/bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking whether make supports nested variables... yes checking whether make supports nested variables... (cached) yes checking that generated files are newer than configure... done configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating Makefile config.status: creating src/Makefile config.status: creating share/Makefile checking for x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-gcc... no checking for x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-clang... no checking for x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-objc... no checking for x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-objcc... no checking for gcc... gcc checking whether the Objective C compiler works... yes checking for Objective C compiler default output file name... a.out checking for suffix of executables... checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of object files... o checking whether we are using the GNU Objective C compiler... yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes checking for style of include used by make... GNU checking dependency style of gcc... none checking for flex... no checking for lex... no checking for bison... no checking for byacc... no ./configure: line 5095: gnustep-config: command not found configure: error: GNUstep not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Vk5sMo (%build) RPM build errors:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005

--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- (In reply to W. Michael Petullo from comment #3)

Strange. On my Fedora 25 computer gnustep-config's gnustep-make package is required by gnustep-base-devel which is in turn a BuildRequires. The package also builds for me in mock for Fedora 25.

Any idea what is different for you?

From scratch build, 'gnustep-make' is not downloaded for building: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6251/19726251/root.log

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005

--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/tikzit.png See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles

Remove one line: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png

- If (and only if) 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 %license. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Make Make's output more verbose, use V=1

- Code involved is released under GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ licenses. The resultant license for this package is 'GPLv3+'.

- /usr/share/tikzit is not owned

- Use %license macro for COPYING file

- [?]: Latest version is packaged. You are packaging the release 1.0; however, already exists the 1.1 for OSX. Are you sure this software supports no-OSX systems?

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1446005-tikzit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/tikzit [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/tikzit [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in tikzit [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tikzit- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: tikzit-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm tikzit-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm tikzit-1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably tikzit.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit tikzit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tikzit-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably tikzit.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Requires -------- tikzit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnustep-base.so.1.25()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libobjc.so.4()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpoppler-glib.so.8()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

tikzit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- tikzit: application() application(tikzit.desktop) tikzit tikzit(x86-64)

tikzit-debuginfo: tikzit-debuginfo tikzit-debuginfo(x86-64)

Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sf.net/tikzit/tikzit-1.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1446005 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005

--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- - About that?

• [?]: Latest version is packaged. You are packaging the release 1.0; however, already exists the 1.1 for OSX. Are you sure this software supports no-OSX systems?

- You should consider to including an appdata file.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1446005-tikzit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in tikzit [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tikzit- debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: tikzit-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm tikzit-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm tikzit-1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably tikzit.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit tikzit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tikzit-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably tikzit.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Requires -------- tikzit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnustep-base.so.1.25()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libobjc.so.4()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpoppler-glib.so.8()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

tikzit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- tikzit: application() application(tikzit.desktop) tikzit tikzit(x86-64)

tikzit-debuginfo: tikzit-debuginfo tikzit-debuginfo(x86-64)

Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sf.net/tikzit/tikzit-1.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1446005 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005

Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Assignee|anto.trande@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Whiteboard| |AwaitingSubmitter Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(mike@flyn.org) |

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com

--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Group: is not used in Fedora

- qmake-qt5 → %qmake_qt5

- make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" V=1 → %make_build V=1

- make install INSTALL_ROOT="%{buildroot}" → %make_install

- Not needed anymore:

%post /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :

%postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : fi

%posttrans /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :

- Requires hicolor-icon-theme to own the icon directories

- Source: https://github.com/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz → Source: https://github.com/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%...

- Use PREFIX==%{_prefix} instead

# FIXME: Avoid this with proper use of qmake. mv %{buildroot}/usr/local/* %{buildroot}/usr rmdir %{buildroot}/usr/local/