Bug 458939

rpmlint on srpm:

arora.src: W: non-coherent-filename arora-0.3-1.src.rpm arora-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm
The file which contains the package should be named
<NAME>-<VERSION>-<RELEASE>.<ARCH>.rpm.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

srpm name wrong it misses fc8 or fc9??

Sorry, my fault. 

Spec URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/arora/arora.spec
SRPM URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/arora/arora-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm

*** Bug 461355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

RPM Lint: OK (silent)
Package name: OK
Spec file: OK
License: OK
Actual License: OK
%doc License: OK
Spec file language: OK
Spec file readable: OK
Upstream source vs. used tarball: OK
Compile and Build:
 - F-8: FAIL (see note)
 - F-9: FAIL (see note)
 - rawhide: OK
 - EL-5: FAIL (see notes)

Applicable Package Guidelines:

Locales: OK
Shared libs: NA

Relocatable: NA
Directory and file ownership: NOT OK (see mustfix)
No duplicate files in %files: OK
File Permissions: OK
Macro usage: OK
Code vs. Content: NA
(Large) Documentation: NA
%doc affecting runtime: NA
Header files in -devel package: NA
Static Libraries in -static package: NA
pkgconfig Requires: NA
Library files: NA
Devel requires base package: NA
.la libtool archives: NA
Duplicate ownership of files/directories: NOT OK
Remove BuildRoot: OK
UTF-8 filenames: OK

Summary:

MUST FIX:

* Package specifies:
 %{_datadir}/icons/*
 %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*   
Takes ownership of directories that don't belong to the package, and it should in fact own the files that it puts in a subdirectory of the ones listed. 

SHOULD:

* Might be nice to provide a description that doesn't provide developer related information like length of code base and "it's fun to hack on".

NOTES:

* This package requires qt-devel => 4.4, meaning it will only build in rawhide currently. Packages are in updates-testing for future inclusion in F9 and F8.

I hope directories ownership is fixed now and there is new description. This package needs qt 4.4 because of QtWebKit support but new Qt is already pushed in stable.

OK, ownership of directories looks good now.

EPEL 5 build in mock still fails, output below:

/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.24094: line 30: qmake-qt4: command not found
error: 
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.24094 (%build)
RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.24094 (%build)
Child returncode was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/arora.spec']
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in trace
    result = func(*args, **kw)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/util.py", line 316, in do
    raise mock.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i386 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/arora.spec']
LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED

Looks like qt-devel version still isn't right for EPEL 5. Don't know if this is a blocking problem?

Builds OK on Fedora 8,9 and rawhide:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=825813
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=825793
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=825824

I'm now happy with the state of this package. Can't set the review flag to + though, not sure what I'm missing sponsorship wise here?

(In reply to comment #6)
> OK, ownership of directories looks good now.

> Looks like qt-devel version still isn't right for EPEL 5. Don't know if this is
> a blocking problem?
> 

There is missing latest Qt in RHEL, so I do not support EPEL 5 build in this package. 

> 
> I'm now happy with the state of this package. Can't set the review flag to +
> though, not sure what I'm missing sponsorship wise here?

Ops, I don't know. But you are Packager group member, looks ok. Maybe you have to assign this bug to you at first (edit Assigned to) and then you can set + flag. I guess.

Updating the STATUS from NEW To ASSIGNED

Thanks

@Jonathan
As you have updated the review flag, I believe you are reviewer for this request. I have updated the "Assigned To" and STATUS.

Thanks

Rakesh, sorry for that mistake. Still can't seem to set fedora-review to +.

what is your FAS login ? I am not able to search this email in packager group ?

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: arora
Short Description: a cross platform web browser
Owners: jreznik
Branches: F-8 F-9
InitialCC:

Jaroslav wait till Jonathan confirms ... i need to confirm first and then you can carry on.


Thanks

(In reply to comment #13)
> Jaroslav wait till Jonathan confirms ... i need to confirm first and then you
> can carry on.

Ok, I saw you have set + flag but I'll wait.

@Rakesh, my FAS is jonrob. 

Sorry for the hold up with this!

@Jaroslav & @Jonathan - Thanks

APPROVED - Carry on!!

I have set cvs flag again.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: arora
Short Description: a cross platform web browser
Owners: jreznik
Branches: F-8 F-9
InitialCC:

cvs done

arora-0.3-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/arora-0.3-1.fc9

arora-0.3-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/arora-0.3-1.fc8

arora-0.3-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

arora-0.3-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.