Bug 580755

Summary: Review Request: yad - Display graphical dialogs from shell scripts or command line
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Damien Durand <splinux25>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Christoph Wickert <cwickert>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: cwickert, eldermarco, fedora-package-review, notting
Target Milestone: ---Flags: cwickert: 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: 2010-07-16 10:43:43 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Damien Durand 2010-04-08 19:44:36 EDT
Spec URL: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/yad/yad.spec
SRPM URL: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/yad/yad-0.2.0-1.fc13.src.rpm

Description: yad (yet another dialog) is a fork of Zenity with many improvements, 
such as custom buttons, additional dialogs, pop-up menu in notification icon 
and more.
Comment 1 Christoph Wickert 2010-04-09 18:24:57 EDT
FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/yad-*
yad.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dialogs -> dialog, dialog s, dialings
yad.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dialogs -> dialog, dialog s, dialings
yad.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12)
yad.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://yad.googlecode.com/files/yad-0.2.0.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found
yad.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dialogs -> dialog, dialog s, dialings
yad.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dialogs -> dialog, dialog s, dialings
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

The spelling errors can be ignored, "dialogs" is the correct pluram form in American English.
The source URL is valid, tested with spectool
This leaves the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning, which is trivial but should IMO be fixed.

OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines
?? - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 51cbf09fb8e6d92f0fca6c4ac1d5b890
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - 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 - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - 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, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application but it is not supposed to be calles from the menu, so no %{name}.desktop file is required.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
N/A - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin


Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete


Issues:
- What license is this? COPYING is GPLv3, but about.c says it's GPLv2+
- The manpage should not have .gz as extension because we might switch to bz2 or lzma compressed manpages some day
- Please fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning.

The only blocker is the license. If you clarify this with upstream, I will approve the package.
Comment 2 Christoph Wickert 2010-05-09 10:35:14 EDT
Any news on this?
Comment 3 Christoph Wickert 2010-05-11 18:52:26 EDT
BTW: 0.2.1 is out.
Comment 4 Christoph Wickert 2010-07-11 05:17:19 EDT
Meanwhile 0.3.0 is out and the license question is answered, all files are GPLv3+ now. Please update your package so I can have a look over it.

If I don't hear back within two weeks, I will close this review.
Comment 5 Christoph Wickert 2010-07-16 10:43:43 EDT
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews I'm now closing this review request.
Comment 6 Elder Marco 2011-03-10 07:47:00 EST
Hello Christoph,

I'm sorry, I created a new review request for this package: 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683150

Should I mark it as a duplicate of this bug? Can you review it? This is my first package..

Thanks.
Comment 7 Christoph Wickert 2011-06-26 19:38:38 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 683150 ***