[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902
Adam Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||admil...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Adam Miller ---
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]: 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]: %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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %doc.
[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)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause) MIT/X11
(BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1,) GPL (unversioned/unknown version) LGPL (v2.1 or
later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MPL (v1.1,) BSD (3 clause)
GPL (unversioned/unknown version) LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL
(unversioned/unknown version)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 280 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/admiller/reviews/915902-qt5-qtscript/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the package
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|admil...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtscript.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtscript-5.0.2-2.fc19.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Aug 28 2013 Rex Dieter 5.0.2-2 - update Source URL - %%doc LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt LICENSE.GPL LICENSE.LGPL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MpmrZtv7P4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902
Adam Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Adam Miller ---
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]: 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]: %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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %doc.
[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)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause) MIT/X11
(BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1,) GPL (unversioned/unknown version) LGPL (v2.1 or
later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MPL (v1.1,) BSD (3 clause)
GPL (unversioned/unknown version) LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL
(unversioned/unknown version)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 280 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/admiller/reviews/915902-qt5-qtscript/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).
= 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]: Package functions as de
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qt5-qtscripot Short Description: Qt5 - QtScript component Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=N5zqJzxsC1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- WARNING: Requested package name qt5-qtscripot doesn't match bug summary qt5-qtscript, please correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TwgDp4VQ5W&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3YhzqFSEoM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qt5-qtscript Short Description: Qt5 - QtScript component Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VRu1gCDNvg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UoLV65r7Gw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yBLH5UGNuI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-09-03 09:33:15 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter --- imported, thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QQgQ7OnHci&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||878188 (qt5-qtbase) Alias||qt5-qtscript -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uA1LzzWZwx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||915907 (qt5-qtquick1) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Rv7RKDvEno&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PuukHO0vt2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BMAXVovM8G&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtscript.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtscript-5.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Apr 11 2013 Rex Dieter 5.0.2-1 - 5.0.2 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5243989 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W3sA7ZHKlq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915902] Review Request: qt5-qtscript - Qt5 - QtScript component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915902 Bug 915902 depends on bug 878188, which changed state. Bug 878188 Summary: Review Request: qt5-qtbase - Qt5 - QtBase components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878188 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kWPt3Kx248&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
