Bug 614548 (qt-mobility)

scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2319817

YES - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
YES - Spec file matches base package name.
YES - Spec has consistant macro usage.
YES - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
YES - License
YES - License field in spec matches
YES - License file included in package
YES - Spec in American English
YES - Spec is legible.
YES - Sources match upstream md5sum:

NA - Package needs ExcludeArch
YES - BuildRequires correct
YES - Spec handles locales/find_lang
NA - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
YES - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
YES - Package has a correct %clean section.
YES - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
YES - Package is code or permissible content.
NO - Doc subpackage needed/used.
YES - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

YES - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
NA - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
NA - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
YES- .so files in -devel subpackage.
NO - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NA - .la files are removed.

NA - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

YES - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
YES - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
YES - Package owns all the directories it creates.
NO - No rpmlint output.
YES - final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.)

SHOULD Items:

YES - Should build in mock.
YES - Should build on all supported archs
YES - Should function as described.
NA - Should have sane scriptlets.
NO - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
YES - Should have dist tag
YES - Should package latest version
NA - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:
1. -devel does not require core package
2. license typo
3. docs found in docs/html/ not included in %docs

1.  -devel does include,
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
already.

2. should be
License: LGPLv2 with exceptions
yes (no +)

3.  I'll try to find out what's expected with the docs.  the Makefile's only generate a qch file, but there are no install targets.

Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-mobility/qt-mobility.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-mobility/qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Jul 14 2010 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 1.0.1-3
- License: LGPLv2 ...
- -doc subpkg

YES - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
YES - Spec file matches base package name.
YES - Spec has consistant macro usage.
YES - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
YES - License
YES - License field in spec matches
YES - License file included in package
YES - Spec in American English
YES - Spec is legible.
YES - Sources match upstream md5sum:

NA - Package needs ExcludeArch
YES - BuildRequires correct
YES - Spec handles locales/find_lang
NA - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
YES - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
YES - Package has a correct %clean section.
YES - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
YES - Package is code or permissible content.
YES - Doc subpackage needed/used.
YES - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

YES - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
NA - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
NA - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
YES- .so files in -devel subpackage.
YES - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NA - .la files are removed.

NA - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

YES - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
YES - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
YES - Package owns all the directories it creates.
NO - No rpmlint output.
YES - final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)

SHOULD Items:

YES - Should build in mock.
YES - Should build on all supported archs
YES - Should function as described.
NA - Should have sane scriptlets.
NO - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
YES - Should have dist tag
YES - Should package latest version
NA - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:
1. NONE


------

Rex, sorry about the -devel requires main. Completely overlooked, apologies.

------

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: qt-mobility
Short Description: Qt Mobility Framework
Owners: rdieter,than,kkofler
Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-6
InitialCC:

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Please remember to assign the bug to the reviewer. ;)

imported

qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13

qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 qt-mobility'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13

Hi all,

It seems qt-mobility also have two more optional deps - libqttracker and messagingframework, can anyone help me to review those packages? MeeGo 1.1 need qt-mobility to build agaist those deps.

One of the review is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613881

Chen Lei

Created attachment 432386 [details]
Patch to build declarative plugin

Patch0: qt-mobility-opensource-src-1.0.1-no_declarative.patch is not needed now :)

Feel free to apply for cvs commit access (and apply the patch) if you're interested.  else, I'll get to it soonish.

(In reply to comment #13)
> Feel free to apply for cvs commit access (and apply the patch) if you're
> interested.  else, I'll get to it soonish.    

Applied, thanks. I'll package messagingframework(qmf) ASAP which is a mandatory requirement for qt-mobility messaging modules.

See http://doc.qt.nokia.com/qtmobility-1.0/installation.html#pre-requisites-dependencies