[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||qdigidoc-0.4.0-3.fc15 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-10-21 10:20:28 --- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-21 10:20:28 EDT --- Package imported and built for rawhide, closing the ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-21 09:29:21 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-20 04:54:02 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qdigidoc Short Description: Estonian digital signature application Owners: kalev anttix tuju Branches: f12 f13 f14 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-20 04:46:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Added hicolor-icon-theme, but I'm not sure what to do with shared-mime-info as > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo recommends > to avoid depending on shared-mime-info: > > "Note that similarly to the gtk-update-icon-cache code, these scriptlets > should > be run only if the user has update-mime-info installed and without a specific > Requires: shared-mime-info." > > Any suggestions? Well, the short answer - I wasn't aware of this strange (as it looks for me) exception. I'll try to investigate this situation in details, but for now - I think we should obey this particular rule. I gave up my claim to add shared-mime-info as requires. Ok, I can't find any other issues, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-19 17:16:30 EDT --- Thanks for your review. > Ok, I found the only possible issue - two potentially missing rutime > requirements (shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme). Please, either add > them > as Requires or ensure that someone from dependency chain already requires > them, > and I'll continue. Added hicolor-icon-theme, but I'm not sure what to do with shared-mime-info as http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo recommends to avoid depending on shared-mime-info: "Note that similarly to the gtk-update-icon-cache code, these scriptlets should be run only if the user has update-mime-info installed and without a specific Requires: shared-mime-info." Any suggestions? * Wed Oct 20 2010 Kalev Lember - 0.4.0-3 - Require hicolor-icon-theme (#642555) Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc-0.4.0-3.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-19 15:17:49 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages can be ignored in this case:
Sulaco ~/Desktop: rpmlint qdigidoc-*
qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidocclient
qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidoccrypto
^^^ it implies that no man-pages are provided.
qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
^^^ nautilus plugis are stored in libdir and sometimes they are not a
executable binaries (I mean made by gcc et al.)
qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: no-documentation
^^^ exactly what he said - no docs for this sub-package
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Sulaco ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
(LGPLv2 or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2*
38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780
qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2
38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780
qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro).
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
- The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. Unfortunately two directories are not owned by anyone in the
dependency chain - %{_datadir}/mime/packages/ and %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/.
Their respective owners are - shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme. Please,
add them as explicit Requires (or ensure that someone from dependency chain
will require them).
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Ok, I found the only possible issue - two potentially missing rutime
requirements (shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme). Please, either add them
as Requires or ensure that someone from dependency chain already requires them,
and I'll continue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-19 08:40:59 EDT --- Kalev, sorry for the delay - I was busy with my daily official duties. I'll review it in a couple of hours. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov 2010-10-13 14:46:41 EDT --- I'll review it too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-13 12:16:03 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2532804 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 Bug 642555 depends on bug 641748, which changed state. Bug 641748 Summary: Review Request: libdigidocpp - Library for creating and validating BDoc and DDoc containers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641748 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642555] Review Request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application
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=642555 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: qdigidoc - |Review Request: qdigidoc - |Digital signature |Estonian digital signature |application |application --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember 2010-10-13 09:06:51 EDT --- * Wed Oct 13 2010 Kalev Lember - 0.4.0-2 - Updated summary - Added missing BR gettext Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc-0.4.0-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
