Bug 501223
Summary: | Review Request: tuxmath - Educational math tutor for children | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Johan Cwiklinski <fedora> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jan Klepek <jan.klepek> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, jan.klepek, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jan.klepek:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 1.7.2-4.fc11 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-06-30 21:25:47 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
Johan Cwiklinski
2009-05-18 05:36:04 UTC
Hi Johan, 1] I think we shouldn't ignore this easy-to-fix issue. 2] SPEC doesn't match provided SRPM, could you give us link to latest SRPM? Hi Jan, Ok, I'll fox the end-of-line issue and will upload the new SPEC/SRPM Sorry, I've uploaded the wrong SRPM :/ Here's the correct one : http://rpms.ulysses.fr/SRPMS/tuxmath-1.7.2-2.fc10.src.rpm Ok, I've corrected the rpmlint issue. rpmlint output is now completely clean for both SRPM and RPM. Here's updated links : SRPM : http://rpms.ulysses.fr/SRPMS/tuxmath-1.7.2-3.fc10.src.rpm SPEC : http://rpms.ulysses.fr/SPECS/tuxmath.spec 1] as i take a deeply look, do you even need doc/OFL.txt? it contains license for fonts, which are removed during %prep. So there is no reason to keep it, at least from my point of view. Or is this file license for anything else? 2] Koji build ok on all platforms. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1364506 You're right, i did not pay attention to the content of the OFL.txt file, but it indeed seems font related only. I've removed it, here's the updated links : SRPM : http://rpms.ulysses.fr/SRPMS/tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc10.src.rpm SPEC : http://rpms.ulysses.fr/SPECS/tuxmath.spec MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. - OK rpmlint /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc11.src.rpm /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i586/tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc11.i586.rpm /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/i586/tuxmath-debuginfo-1.7.2-4.fc11.i586.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. - OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines - 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: 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 must be included in %doc. - OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. -OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. -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 on at least one primary architecture. - OK, koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1403044 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture... - OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. -OK MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. -OK, no shared library MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable - OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. - OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. - OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. - OK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. - OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - OK, no large documentation MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. - OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - OK, no header files MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - ok, no static libraries MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). - OK, no .pc files present MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. - OK, no .so library MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}{release} - OK, no devel package MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - OK, no .la archives MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file - OK, desktop file present and desktop-file-install used MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. - OK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - OK Conclusion: APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: tuxmath Short Description: Educational math tutor for children Owners: trasher Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: trasher CVS done. tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc11 tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc10 tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 tuxmath'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-6120 tuxmath-1.7.2-4.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 tuxmath'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-6342 tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. tuxmath-1.7.2-4.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |