[Bug 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-30 18:27:51 -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #16 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 Daniel Pocock changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Daniel Pocock --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xtuple-openrpt Short Description: xTuple / Postbooks reporting utility Upstream URL: https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt Owners: pocock Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- OK, I think everything is fixed. Package is APPROVED. -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #13 from Daniel Pocock --- Zbigniew, thanks for your latest feedback, new SRPM and spec: Spec URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt.spec SRPM URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt-3.3.9-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Daniel Pocock from comment #11) > Is it really necessary to include changelog entries in packages that are not > yet approved? I thought it is only necessary to update the RPM spec file > changelog after a first version of the package is in Fedora? Some people do it. Some people list the notes in a comment. I guess it's not really important where, but for a fairly complicated package it is nice to have it. > Latest SRPM here: > > Spec URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt.spec > SRPM URL: > https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt-3.3.8-1.fc21.src.rpm Thanks. /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/icons_24x24/Thumbs.db ← I think this file got packaged by mistake. /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/openrpt_qembed.h ← This looks like a strange place to put a header file. $ desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/importmqlgui.desktop /usr/share/applications/importmqlgui.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated $ /usr/share/applications/importrptgui.desktop /usr/share/applications/importrptgui.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated $ desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/openrpt.desktop /usr/share/applications/openrpt.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated Icons used in the desktop files are 32x32 pixels. They looks *bad* when gnome-shell scales them to display in the application list. Please use the 128x128 versions if possible. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/icons_16x16 A few dirs in images/ are matched both with specific %dir and with a glob. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple- openrpt/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I just hope I'm reviewing the right version :) [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. xtuple-openrpt-images-3.3.8-1.fc22.noarch.rpm has no license, and no requirements on other packages. Rpmlint --- Checking: xtuple-openrpt-3.3.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-images-3.3.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm xtuple-openrpt-libs-3.3.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-devel-3.3.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-3.3.8-1.fc23.src.rpm xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and libraries Maybe change that to "Postbooks reporting utility and libraries". This will have the advantage that the package will show in searches for postbooks, which is probably quite useful. xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.3.7-1 ['3.3.8-1.fc23', '3.3.8-1'] Typo. xtuple-openrpt-images.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/openrpt_qembed.h xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xtuple-openrpt/COPYING xtuple-openrpt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and libraries xtuple-openrpt.src: W: file-size-mismatch v3.3.8.tar.gz = 5365760, https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/archive/v3.3.8.tar.gz = 1205467 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 22 warnings. -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #11 from Daniel Pocock --- Zbigniew, thanks for your feedback Is it really necessary to include changelog entries in packages that are not yet approved? I thought it is only necessary to update the RPM spec file changelog after a first version of the package is in Fedora? Latest SRPM here: Spec URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt.spec SRPM URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt-3.3.8-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- We need to work on dialogue. It'd help if rpm %changelog was updated with the list of changes. Or at least git log should say what was done. It shouldn't be necessary to go over the patches to see what happened — this makes review unnecessarily hard. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage for guidelines how to install desktop files. I *think* this package is OK, apart from the desktop file handling, but please upload another srpm. -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #9 from Gil Moskowitz --- More review changes have been merged: https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/pull/50 Source code including these changes has been retagged v3.3.8+1 https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/releases/tag/v3.3.8%2B1 -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Jake Holcombe from comment #7) > Zbigniew, the checksum issue is a known problem with source tarballs > obtained from Github OK. -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #7 from Jake Holcombe --- Zbigniew, the checksum issue is a known problem with source tarballs obtained from Github, it is mentioned in the last line under this Github heading: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Github It says "Keep in mind that github tarballs are generated on-demand, so their modification dates will vary and cause checksum tests to fail. Reviewers will need to use diff -r to verify the tarballs. " -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
Permissions should be 0755, not 0775, on libraries. But nobody cares too much,
so this can be ignored if it is inconvenient to fix.
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple-
openrpt/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
I assume that this is a desynchronization caused by latest changes. Just make
sure that the tarballs match when the package is actually built.
Suggested summary: Reporting utility and libraries for postbooks
There *should* be a desktop file, and an appdata file to boot.
Unless you consider the *gui versions not really useful. What is the plan here:
are users supposed to use /usr/bin/importmqlgui, /usr/bin/importrptgui, etc?
= 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple-
openrpt/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/openrpt/OpenRPT, /usr/share/openrpt
Should be owned by the package.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT,
/usr/share/openrpt
[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.
[?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]
[Bug 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Pocock --- Spec URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt.spec SRPM URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt-3.3.7-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
What about the 'rm' call at the beginning of %install? When they are called,
%{rpmbuildroot} is supposed to be empty.
--
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 1196780] Review Request: xtuple-openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: openrpt - |Review Request: |reporting tool for xTuple / |xtuple-openrpt - reporting |PostBooks |tool for xTuple / PostBooks -- 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
