[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Nikos Roussos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||comzer...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #13 from Nikos Roussos --- *** Bug 1128101 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||retext-5.0.1-7.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-02-14 22:28:59 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- retext-5.0.1-7.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- retext-5.0.1-7.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- retext-5.0.1-7.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/retext-5.0.1-7.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann --- Many thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: retext Short Description: Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/p/retext/home/ReText Owners: mariobl Branches: f21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
= MUST items =
Generic:
OK : Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
OK : License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
OK : Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
OK : Changelog in prescribed format.
OK : Sources contain only permissible code or content.
NA : Development files must be in a -devel package
OK : Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
OK : Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
OK : Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK : Package does not generate any conflict.
OK : Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
OK : If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
OK : Requires correct, justified where necessary.
OK : Spec file is legible and written in American English.
OK : Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
OK : update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
OK : gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
OK : Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
OK: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
OK : Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
OK : Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
OK : Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
OK : Package installs properly.
OK : Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
OK : Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
OK : Package must own all directories that it creates.
OK : Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
OK : All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK : Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK : Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
OK : Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
OK : Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
OK : Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
OK : Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
OK : Permissions on files are set properly.
OK : Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
OK : Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
OK : Package do not use a name that already exist
OK : Package is not relocatable.
OK : Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
OK : Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
PK : File names are valid UTF-8.
Python:
OK : Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
OK : Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
OK : A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
OK : Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
Note: Test run failed
OK : Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
OK : If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
OK : Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
OK : Package functions as described.
OK : Latest version is packaged.
OK : Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
OK : Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK : Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK : %check is present and all tests pass.
OK : Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
OK : Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
OK : Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
OK : Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK : Buildroot is not present
OK : Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
OK : Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
OK : No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
OK : SourceX is a working URL.
OK : Spec use %global instead of %define unless just
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann --- Here are the new files: Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/retext.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/retext-5.0.1-7.fc21.src.rpm Scratch build for f21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8787347 There's just one message from rpmlint which is worth to be investigated: retext.noarch: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/retext.appdata.xml appdata file is not valid, check with appdata-validate See here what appdata-validate says then: $ appdata-validate retext.appdata.xml retext.appdata.xml 1 problems detected: • style-invalid : Not enough tags for a good description I have tried different scenarios: Splitting the single paragraph into two, adding a small feature list... But all I try is not "good enough" for appdata-validate. Either the paragraphs are too short, or the list entries or anything else. Let's keep the file as is, the Gnome folks have their appdata, and that's all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498
--- Comment #5 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains
desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in retext
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
= MUST items =
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
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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.
[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 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #3) > In the links for Source 1, Source 2, Source 3 %srcname is > https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/ReText and the correct URL is > https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Retext/ > > I download the Sources and build the SRPM and run the test. > > Package build in my f21 and in Rawhide: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8600491 > > Please add a appdata.xml file to your app (I you don't I will be not > displayed in Gnome-Software in the current version of Gnome available in the > Fedora Workstatios) see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/retext.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/retext-5.0.1-6.fc21.src.rpm - Fix URLs of extra sources - Add appdata file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498
--- Comment #3 from William Moreno ---
In the links for Source 1, Source 2, Source 3 %srcname is
https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/ReText and the correct URL is
https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Retext/
I download the Sources and build the SRPM and run the test.
Package build in my f21 and in Rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8600491
Please add a appdata.xml file to your app (I you don't I will be not displayed
in Gnome-Software in the current version of Gnome available in the Fedora
Workstatios) see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData
Look like retext Legal_Notice.xml work ok with rpm instaled
Here is the output of fedora-review there is somo points than still need some
atention.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/retext/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- 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 %doc.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE_GPL in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains
desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in retext
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: 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:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/retext/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in retext
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[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
Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not downlo
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- New version: Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/retext.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/retext-5.0.1-5.fc21.src.rpm - Replace qt-devel with qt5-qttools-devel to use the correct linguist toolchain - Use the %%license macro - Keep the tests enabled, but make them optional -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Bug 1169498 depends on bug 1169493, which changed state. Bug 1169493 Summary: Review Request: python-markups - A wrapper around various text markups https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169493 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/retext.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/retext-5.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm The new version makes use of the %license macro. Moreover, the %check section is now optional to reduce the build requirements a bit, but the tests are still enabled by default. Latest packages are always available from a Copr repo: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mariobl/retext/ Note, to use this repo, you have also to enable python-markups: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mariobl/python-markups/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) Depends On||1169493 (python-markups) Alias||retext Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169493 [Bug 1169493] Review Request: python-markups - A wrapper around various text markups -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
