Bug 496489
| Summary: | Review Request: abby - Front-end for cclive and clive | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nicoleau Fabien <nicoleau.fabien> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, susi.lehtola |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | susi.lehtola:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 0.2.1-1.fc11 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-05-02 16:29:25 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
Nicoleau Fabien
2009-04-19 16:00:23 UTC
- Shouldn't this package Requires: clive, cclive from a usability point of view..?
rpmlint output is clean.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSFIX
- Don't use %{name} in URL.
- "install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}" is redundant since "install -Dm 755 -p %{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}" already creates the directory for you. Also desktop-file-install seems to create the destination directory automatically, so you can drop the directory line altogether.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. 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. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
You can do the fixes upon import to CVS. The package has been
APPROVED
Thank you for the review. I'll fix URL. Before importing, about the first question, for requires : - at first, cclive was the only one compatible with abby. clive is compatible since last version. As cclive is lighter than clive, I think I could add cclive as a require for abby - an other solution is to create a virtual provide, in clive and cclive, like "clive_backend". Then abby could have a require on "clive_backend". I don't know if it's a good solution. BTW, cclive/abby is originally the "real" couple. I don't really know what i the best solution. May be we can also let the user choose himselft his own backend. (In reply to comment #2) > Thank you for the review. I'll fix URL. > Before importing, about the first question, for requires : > - at first, cclive was the only one compatible with abby. clive is compatible > since last version. As cclive is lighter than clive, I think I could add cclive > as a require for abby > - an other solution is to create a virtual provide, in clive and cclive, like > "clive_backend". Then abby could have a require on "clive_backend". I don't > know if it's a good solution. > > BTW, cclive/abby is originally the "real" couple. > > I don't really know what i the best solution. May be we can also let the user > choose himselft his own backend. Since clive and cclive are trivial in size, I'd put both as requirements. As clive will also generate some perl requriements, and if you are ok with that, I prefer put only cclive as an explicit requirement. Is that really such a big of an issue? How big are the perl packages? However, if abby fails quietly when trying to use clive, then it might be a courtesy to the user to require also clive. Otherwise s/he won't probably know why abby doesn't work. Anyway, I leave it for you to decide what is sensible. If cclive is present, abby won't warn. It requires one, or the other, but not both. If none of them are found, abby will display a messagebox. I'll add cclive as an explicit requires. If users thinks that clive is needed too, I'll add it in further releases. I'll also fix URL. Thank you for this review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: abby Short Description: Front-end for cclive and clive Owners: eponyme Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: cvs done. abby-0.2.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abby-0.2.0-2.fc11 abby-0.2.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abby-0.2.0-2.fc10 abby-0.2.0-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abby-0.2.0-2.fc9 abby-0.2.0-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update abby'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-4059 abby-0.2.0-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update abby'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-4060 abby-0.2.0-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. abby-0.2.0-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. abby-0.2.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abby-0.2.1-1.fc11 abby-0.2.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |