Bug 557969
Summary: | Review Request: sugar-socialcalc - A spreadsheet activity for the Sugar environment | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Eric Smith <spacewar> |
Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, spacewar, susi.lehtola |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | spacewar:
fedora-review?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-06-22 14:04:18 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: | 462625, 558617 |
Description
Sebastian Dziallas
2010-01-22 22:23:43 UTC
Should preserve modification time of web/license.txt, as is done for end of line encoding. rpmlint output: sugar-socialcalc.spec:6: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-socialcalc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Since the Fedora Packaging:SugarActivityGuidelines specifically use the group Sugar/Activities in the sample spec, the rpmlint warnings are not a problem. Ideally Sugar/Activities would get added to the official group list. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSWORK some source files don't have copyright/license information: $ licensecheck ../BUILD /SocialCalcActivity.activity/../BUILD/SocialCalcActivity.activity/localized_strings_file.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ../BUILD/SocialCalcActivity.activity/SocialCalcActivity.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ../BUILD/SocialCalcActivity.activity/setup.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ../BUILD/SocialCalcActivity.activity/test-web-view.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ../BUILD/SocialCalcActivity.activity/XOCom.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ../BUILD/SocialCalcActivity.activity/create-dev-env.pl: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ../BUILD/SocialCalcActivity.activity/intero.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN 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 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. N/A MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. 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. N/A MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. 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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. 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. N/A 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. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' N/A 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. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency N/A MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. N/A MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section N/A 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 SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK Upstream should include the GPL and MIT license text files, which are specifically referenced in web/xocom.js and web/jquery.js as GPL-license.txt and MIT-license.txt, respectively. SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. NEEDSWORK I'm not sure whether suitable translations are available, but based on the inclusion of message translations in the package, it seems like they might be. SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. NEEDSWORK I get the throbbing icon for a while, but never get the spreadsheet. Possibly a missing dependency? SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. N/A SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. N/A SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. N/A (In reply to comment #1) > some source files don't have copyright/license information: > $ licensecheck ../BUILD Did you check these by hand? Sometimes licensecheck just doesn't find the headers. I manually verified that at least some of the files reported by licensecheck did not contain copyright/license information, and I manually verified that some of the files not reported do contain copyright/license information. Actually, there are more of them with missing information than I listed above, because I forgot the -r option to licensecheck: ../interoperability/__init__.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./interoperability/xls/__init__.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./interoperability/xls/compound.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./interoperability/xls/workbook.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./interoperability/xls/function.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./interoperability/xls/convert_to_scalcstring.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./interoperability/lotus_wk4.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN (The first two above just contain "pass", so a copyright or license on those would be meaningless.) Thanks for the review! I pinged upstream via e-mail, who replied that he'd fix that and get a new version out soon. Upstream e-mailed me a fixed version of the activity - I asked them to make a new release, so that we can move on here. Alright, here's an updated version which should fix the outstanding licensing issues, as far as I can see. Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-socialcalc.spec SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-socialcalc-5-2.fc12.src.rpm Ping? Sorry to keep you waiting. I'll have time to check it out tomorrow or Wednesday. Sorry to nag again, but how's this going? :) License problem fixed, but I still can't get it to run in sugar-emulator. I just get the pulsating logo. Maybe a missing dependency? Meh, you're right. I seem to recall it worked some time ago; looks like some Xulrunner related breakage. I'll pursue upstream on this. Sorry for the noise. :/ Any news from upstream? There are a few things apparently being moved around with regard to the JaveScript backend this relies on. I'm closing this until we've an appropriate strategy for Sugar on a Stick to move forward with it. |