[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- @Dridi, when approving a package, please assign the bug to you and set the state to ASSIGNED. Just a post-review comment: qt4-devel is pulled in by kdelibs-devel and can be dropped from the build requirements. -- 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=kOmmB14f0la=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- 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=LkwzRaqbNNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 --- Comment #8 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- @Kevin, thanks for the explanations. As I said to Christopher, maybe this should be clarified in the wiki for desktop noobs like me. @Christopher, looks like I'm allowed to change the flag since kevin's sponsored me :) -- 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=Evv9WzgzO4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Oh, and for desktop-file-install, the rule is that you must run EITHER desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate on each *.desktop file, both do the same validations (and there's an unwritten rule that files under desktop-environment-specific paths such as /usr/share/kde4/services need not be validated because they need to be valid only for the specific desktop environment, in this case for kdelibs). -- 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=RMcqyVeTGVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Replacing COPYING is usually a bad idea, we're not supposed to mess with upstream COPYING files in any way. (In fact, we aren't even supposed to add them if upstream forgot them entirely.) -- 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=YvpUqXrZXsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 --- Comment #4 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) 1. Well, not all times I can replace the COPYING, especially I cannot get permission of upstream. But such error is not blocker. Changed to GPLv2+. I thought rpmlint errors were blockers, in this case it's ok. License tag, OK! 2. I will suggest RPM adding iconsdir macro into main package, so now I will revert to datadir/icons. Add BR of jpackage is not good ;0 Yup I was also surprised when I found the macro came from this package. 3. desktop-file-install is not a MUST, if package installs its desktop file by scripts but not by packager, we can validate it. That's why I add %check section to make sure the desktop file matches the standard. Maybe the rule should be amended with something like unless the upstream project provides it. Thanks for the explanation. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/abakus.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/abakus-0.92-2.fc20.src.rpm The package looks good to me, what's next ? -- 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=stL6uk2W95a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- If you are a packager, just approve it. From your fasname dridi and varnish mod review, I think that you are not sponsored yet. I think you need to find a sponsor for your packages, and then let the sponsor sponsor you and then you have permissions to approve my packages.(Change flags fedora-review from blank to +) But seems Ingvar is busy. :( If you want to become a packager, the sponsor will ask you to review 1 or 2 other packages as this can prove if you really understand packaging. You can tell the sponsor about this one ;) -- 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=hyOGjLhjLEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860
--- Comment #1 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com ---
Hi,
During my review I've found issues that look like blockers.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
$ rpmlint SRPMS/abakus-0.92-1.fc20.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/abakus-0.92-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
abakus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bc - BC, bx, b
abakus.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bc - BC, bx, b
abakus.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/abakus-0.92/COPYING
abakus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abakus
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
The missing man page should not be an issue for a GUI app. For the FSF address,
it's in all source file headers, but only the COPYING file should be an issue.
For the makeself package, I've solved this by adding the license as a second
upstream source to override the outdated file. Abakus not being maintained,
it's probably useless to ask the upstream to fix this.
Makeself review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015
Spec sample:
Source1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
I suppose this is not ok until the licensing issue is solved.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
Not OK, more like GPLv2+ according to source files headers.
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as
it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can
be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how
to deal with this.
OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
OK (x86_64)
There are warnings though.
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
I cannot test other architectures (maybe i686).
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
n/a
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
n/a
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
n/a
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted
to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
n/a
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 --- Comment #2 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- To build successfully with mock: BuildRequires: jpackage-utils -- 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=2dNHSPr7DAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- 1. Well, not all times I can replace the COPYING, especially I cannot get permission of upstream. But such error is not blocker. Changed to GPLv2+. 2. I will suggest RPM adding iconsdir macro into main package, so now I will revert to datadir/icons. Add BR of jpackage is not good ;0 3. desktop-file-install is not a MUST, if package installs its desktop file by scripts but not by packager, we can validate it. That's why I add %check section to make sure the desktop file matches the standard. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/abakus.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/abakus-0.92-2.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=coO9PgPluha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com 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=vH8SjEtAgna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org Alias||abakus -- 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=4454E3M2KVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
