Bug 1117403
Summary: | Review Request: pipelight - NPAPI Wrapper Plugin for using Windows plugins in Linux browsers | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Björn 'besser82' Esser <besser82> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matthias Runge <mrunge> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | mrunge |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mrunge:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | wine-1.7.22-3.fc19 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-07-08 20:23:48 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Björn 'besser82' Esser
2014-07-08 15:23:01 UTC
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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 (3 clause)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 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. That is actually true, because of wine [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 7 files. [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]: 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 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 ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Upstream does not include license texts, but simply contains a line: The code is licensed under the MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1. For more information take a look at the license block in linux/basicplugin.c. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5621760 bytes in /usr/share [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: pipelight-0.2.7.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm pipelight-0.2.7.1-1.fc20.src.rpm pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine /usr/bin/wine pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine64 /usr/bin/wine64 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint pipelight pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine /usr/bin/wine pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine64 /usr/bin/wine64 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- pipelight (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/gpg /usr/bin/wget /usr/bin/zenity libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) mozilla-filesystem(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) wine(x86-64) Provides -------- pipelight: libpipelight.so()(64bit) pipelight pipelight(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- pipelight: /usr/lib64/pipelight/libpipelight.so Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/mmueller2012/pipelight/get/v0.2.7.1.tar.gz#/pipelight-0.2.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48d0a245d53e045bc9e45dee0e124b3ec4dd9ebd30b3fbac2f787cbe0a46b9b2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48d0a245d53e045bc9e45dee0e124b3ec4dd9ebd30b3fbac2f787cbe0a46b9b2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551 http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/index.txt#/mpl-1.1.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb4680b13c3190429464a8308a07d7d891e6454349fb7be856e02405b25b1195 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb4680b13c3190429464a8308a07d7d891e6454349fb7be856e02405b25b1195 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1117403 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Excellent work! Package approved please add bsd 3 clause to licenses. (In reply to Matthias Runge from comment #2) > please add bsd 3 clause to licenses. Fixed. --------------------- %changelog * Tue Jul 08 2014 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser> - 0.2.7.1-2 - added BSD to License (#1117403) see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117403#c2 * Mon Jul 07 2014 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser> - 0.2.7.1-1 - initial rpm release (#1117403) Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/pipelight.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/pipelight-0.2.7.1-2.fc20.src.rpm Thanks, now all my issues are resolved and I can finally APPROVE this package Many thanks for the quick review, Matthias! ^^ --------------------- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pipelight Short Description: NPAPI Wrapper Plugin for using Windows plugins in Linux browsers Upstream URL: http://pipelight.net/ Owners: besser82 awjb Branches: epel7 f19 f20 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). Package imported into SCM. Builds are short to come. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pipelight New Branches: f21 Owners: besser82 awjb Git done (by process-git-requests). pipelight-0.2.7.1.1-0.14.git20140714.61348bc7adad.fc20,pipelight-selinux-0.1.0-1.fc20,wine-1.7.22-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pipelight-0.2.7.1.1-0.14.git20140714.61348bc7adad.fc20,pipelight-selinux-0.1.0-1.fc20,wine-1.7.22-3.fc20 pipelight-0.2.7.1.1-0.14.git20140714.61348bc7adad.fc19,pipelight-selinux-0.1.0-1.fc19,wine-1.7.22-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pipelight-0.2.7.1.1-0.14.git20140714.61348bc7adad.fc19,pipelight-selinux-0.1.0-1.fc19,wine-1.7.22-3.fc19 pipelight-0.2.7.3-1.fc20, pipelight-selinux-0.2.1-2.fc20, wine-1.7.22-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. wine-1.7.22-3.fc19, pipelight-0.2.7.3-1.fc19, pipelight-selinux-0.2.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |