[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-11 16:27 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-23 00:54 EST --- This review seems to be stalled. Jindrich, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/StalledReviews#Submitter_not_responding you need to respond within a week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|MODIFIED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-02 03:35 EST --- Sorry, I was in Africa for 3 weeks with no internet access. I applied all your points except: + Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc? reason: It contains perl script that could pull in a perl dependency, which shouldn't be otherwise needed. The questin is whether /usr/share/doc is a good place for scripts anyway. IIRC the s390(x) excluding is because it simply doesn't have USB support. Thanks for review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-02 06:18 EST --- Just "chmod -x simple-mtpupload " and rpm will no longer pull perl as dependency -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 --- Comment #7 from Debarshi Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-07 00:39:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) + What is the need for two Source0 lines? The first one should be simply removed. + Unnecessary 'BuildRequires: pkgconfig' still remains. + You could look at Manuel's comment on simple-mtpupload, but its finally upto you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 --- Comment #8 from Debarshi Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-07 00:44:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Fedora tends to prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo), so it would be nice if you could use it instead of %defattr(-,root,root). But this is not a blocker for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 Jindrich Novy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Customer Facing|NO |--- --- Comment #9 from Jindrich Novy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-07 00:55:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Fedora tends to prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) Updated. (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > + What is the need for two Source0 lines? The first one should be simply > removed. It was a typo, the older one should just have to go away. > > + Unnecessary 'BuildRequires: pkgconfig' still remains. > Removed. > + You could look at Manuel's comment on simple-mtpupload, but its finally upto > you. Well, putting executable stuff into /usr/share/doc is not a good idea, we should either package it to be actually executable in /usr/bin or not to package it at all. Just removing the executable attribute to fool RPM is not a solution IMO. Thanks for the review :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 --- Comment #10 from Debarshi Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-09 08:58:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Looks like a rpmlint warning has crept in during the review: + [EMAIL PROTECTED] x86_64]$ rpmlint gphoto2-2.4.2-3.fc10.x86_64.rpm gphoto2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gphoto2-2.4.2/ChangeLog [EMAIL PROTECTED] x86_64]$ Could be fixed as shown in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#file-not-utf8 Otherwise it looks fine. +-+ | This package is APPROVED by me. | +-+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855
--- Comment #11 from Debarshi Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-09 09:08:50 EDT
---
Also replace %{buildroot} with %%{buildroot} in the %changelog stanza to avoid
rpmlint warnings on the SRPM.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 --- Comment #12 from Debarshi Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-14 17:28:46 EDT --- Ping? Is there anything which is stopping us from closing this review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 Jindrich Novy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #13 from Jindrich Novy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-15 00:46:59 EDT --- Nope, everything seems to be fixed now. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-21 16:16 EST ---
MUST Items:
OK - rpmlint is clean
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec
xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
+ Is it necessary to define multilib_arches?
+ Since the package no longer carries the library, it should not be
mentioned in the description.
+ Source0 does not conform to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL packaging/rpm/package.spec.in
and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec seem to have a non-functional URL. Upstream
should be informed about it.
+ The --enable-docs and --enable-lockdev options could not be found in
configure and configure.ac and look like remnants from libgphoto2.
+ Is --with-doc-dir really needed? Shouldn't it by
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} instead of %{_docdir}/%{name}?
+ To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ Why not include ChangeLog and TODO in %doc?
+ Why not include contrib/simple-mtpupload in %doc?
OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
xx - License field meets actual license
+ Should be GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
packaging/rpm/package.spec.in and packaging/rpm/gphoto2.spec wrongly mention
LGPL. Upstream should be informed about it.
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch for s390 and s390x
+ s390 and s390x are not Fedora supported architectures, yet. Out of
curiosity, what is the reason for this?
xx - redundant and extra build dependencies listed
+ libusb-devel and libexif-devel are brought in by libgphoto2-devel,
lockdev-devel looks like an old requirement from libgphoto2, while pkgconfig is
brought in by all the -devel packages providing *.pc files.
xx - locales not handled properly
+ BuildRequires: gettext should be added. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
+ The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-)
OK - %clean present
xx - macros not used consistently
+ Both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT notations used.
+ No need to enclose them within double quotes. According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros only one style should
be used.
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
+ s390 and s390x are excluded, which are not Fedora architectures.
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are sane
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225855] Merge Review: gphoto2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: gphoto2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225855
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-22 08:03 EST ---
If the package is creating the %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} directory, it
should either be removed or owned by the package because a package must own all
directories that it creates.
And I am only curious to know why this fails to build on s390 and s390x, and not
why they are not Fedora-supported architectures. :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
