Bug 1058090

NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/rpcalc.spec
NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/rpcalc-0.7.0-1.fc21.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.


===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/simon/1058090-rpcalc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Question, is this really required?

BuildRequires:  python3-PyQt4


[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.
     Note: icons in rpcalc
[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.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Is this really required?

 sed -i 's|/usr/bin/env python3|%{__python3}|g' source/*.py

using '/usr/bin/env python3' should be pretty standard. Also, it seems that rpmlint is complaining about these lines regardless.

[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 %doc.
[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 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: 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
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rpcalc-0.7.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          rpcalc-0.7.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calccore.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calcstack.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/optiondlg.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calcbutton.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/optiondefaults.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/helpview.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/option.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/altbasedialog.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/icondict.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calcdlg.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calclcd.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/extradisplay.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/setup.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpcalc
rpcalc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/rpcalc/INSTALL
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rpcalc
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calccore.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calcstack.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/optiondlg.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calcbutton.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/optiondefaults.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/helpview.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/option.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/altbasedialog.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/icondict.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calcdlg.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/calclcd.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/extradisplay.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/rpcalc/setup.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3
rpcalc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpcalc
rpcalc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/rpcalc/INSTALL
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
rpcalc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python3
    python3-PyQt4



Provides
--------
rpcalc:
    application()
    application(rpcalc.desktop)
    rpcalc



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/rpcalc/0.7.0/rpcalc-0.7.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9ce9b955d6d0d1e138807dc364e7d232adff5962eec269a23276479a778c0b00
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ce9b955d6d0d1e138807dc364e7d232adff5962eec269a23276479a778c0b00

BuildRequires:  python3-PyQt4?

Yes, as the install script will detect if it's available on the system.

NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/rpcalc.spec
NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/rpcalc-0.7.0-2.fc22.src.rpm

Please set review flag and assignee if you want to review it.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

This review request is very old. Do you still intend to complete it? If so, I can review. If not, please close the issue and mark it as FE-DEADREVIEW, or do nothing, in which case automation will close it in one month.

Things to fix: Issues reported in earlier comments, update to newest version, links to specfile and srpm are broken.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.