Bug 201656
Summary: | Review Request: gstm | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Damien Durand <splinux25> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | laurent.rineau__fedora, panemade | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened | ||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-09-06 20:02:41 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: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Damien Durand
2006-08-07 23:21:35 UTC
packaging looks ok. + Mockbuild is successfull for i386 FC6 + rpmlint on binary rpm is silent + dist tag is present + Buildroot is correct + source URL is correct + BR is correct + License used is GPL + License file COPYING is included + Desktop file is handled correctly + MD5 sum on tarball is matching upstream tarball 7fa71b86969d8d695c3b062780a5694e gstm-1.2.tar.gz + No duplicate files Why has this been closed and checked in? I don't see any approval, and it's still blocking FE-NEW. Confused... But make the a complet review please! Someone could review this package? In the interests of getting everything straightened out, I'll go ahead and review this package. The only rpmlint complaint: W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs There is a mix of indentation types used in the spec, but I don't know if there's a particular use that it's complaining about. What's the point of the BuildRequires: openssh? That just gives you ssh-keygen and some documentation; did you mean to BR: openssh-clients instead? Or, perhaps, did you mean to Requires: openssh-clients? Currently there's no SSH dependency in the final package. * source files match upstream: 7fa71b86969d8d695c3b062780a5694e gstm-1.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. O specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. ? BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: gstm = 1.2-1.fc6 = libICE.so.6()(64bit) libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit) libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * GUI app; desktop file looks OK and is installed properly. Well I removed openssh in br :) New Spec : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec Nex SRPM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-2.src.rpm For some reason several things have stopped building for me in rawhide, including this package. It still builds fine in FC5, though. OK, so you removed the BR: openssh-client, but you seem to have neglected the other comments I made. The mixed-spaces-and-tabs thing isn't really a blocker but it's still there and it would be good if you fixed it. More troubling is that there's still no dependency on openssh-clients. At minimum you need to require /usr/bin/ssh because gstm will call that directly. (Actually it calls "ssh" and relies on PATH to find it.) ** gstm-1.2-2.src.rpm builds and runs fine on my x86_64 machine under FC-5. ** rpmlint produces: W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs ** However, I think that %{_bindir}/gaskpass should go into a separate package. (In reply to comment #5) > * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. Actually, it does: in %files, "%{_datadir}/pixmaps" should be "%{_datadir}/pixmaps/*". This is a MUST. (Sorry for the spam.) Another comment: the %description should preserve the case chosen upstream: "gSTM" instead of "Gstm". (In reply to comment #9) > Actually, it does: in %files, "%{_datadir}/pixmaps" should > be "%{_datadir}/pixmaps/*". This is a MUST. Indeed. In FC5 is it very common for gnome packages to own this directory; 40 packages provide it. When I looked at the list of packages I seem to have missed the fact that "filesystem" is one of those packages, and so you must not own it. Added openssh-clients and repackaged. SRPM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-3.src.rpm SPEC : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec I think there must be some sort of communication problem here. The way this works is that reviewers make comments and point out things that need to be changed. You should either make the indicated changes or discuss why you think those changes shouldn't be made. Instead, you seem to be ignoring most of the comments. The following issues have not been addressed: Still owns %{_datadir}/pixmaps. %description still says Gstm instead of gSTM. In addition, could you also comment on Laurent's comment that gaskpass should be in a separate package? (I admit to not understanding the issue here; perhaps Laurent could elaborate.) (In reply to comment #13) > In addition, could you also comment on Laurent's comment that gaskpass should be > in a separate package? (I admit to not understanding the issue here; perhaps > Laurent could elaborate.) This is not an "issue". gAskpass could be totally independent from gSTM. I think that it has an interest outside of gSTM: one could like to install gAskpass without gSTM. Created attachment 134623 [details]
Patch that create a gaskpass package
Thanks for your patch Laurent, it's added to the spec file. Spec : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec SPRM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-4.fc6.src.rpm Still owns %datadir/pixmaps. %description still says Gstm instead of gSTM. Damien, could you remove gstm from owners.list, until this package is fully accepted (maybe soon)? gstm has been reported bogus in the last "FE package status" mail. Sorry, I've been busy a while. You'll find a new spec and srpm where %description and %datadir/pixmaps have been fixed. spec: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec srpm: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-5.fc6.src.rpm Indeed, those two issues have been fixed. Three rpmlint issues have cropped up, but they're not blockers: W: gstm macro-in-%changelog description You need to double every percent symbol in your changelog. W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs I believe this warning is completely bogus in this situation. W: gaskpass no-documentation Indeed, there isn't any, but this isn't really an issue as far as I can see. The issues that were raised have been addressed. APPROVED Changed summary for tracking purposes. |