Bug 722843

Not a review:
AFAIK, You can't use a URL in the changelog email filed. Especially not a URL for a 3rd party repository.




-- 
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

(In reply to comment #1)
> Not a review:
> AFAIK, You can't use a URL in the changelog email filed. Especially not a URL
> for a 3rd party repository.

So the changelog just needs an obfuscated email address instead of the freshrpms.net URL...
Is that all that's stopping synergy from being un-retired?

--
Rich

That's changed now. I don't think this was blocking, the problem being that no one has volunteered for nor started the formal review yet.

I'm quite interested in synergy as well, so I'll do the review...

One minor remark:

The provided spec file is does not match the spec file in the src.rpm, this makes it hard to distinguish which one is the newest: please always keep them in sync. ;-) 


Here now the complete review:

* rpmlint: TODO
rpmlint RPMS/i686/synergy-* SRPMS/synergy-1.3.7-2.fc15.src.rpm SPECS/synergy.spec 
 synergy.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided synergy-plus
-> according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages the new package should have a "Provides" for the replaced package

 synergy.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/synergy-1.3.7/COPYING
-> you may report this to upstream, but it won't block the review

 synergy.src: W: strange-permission synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz 0444L
-> false positive

 synergy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://synergy.googlecode.com/files/synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
-> false positive, the URL is correct (tested with "spectool -g synergy.spec"), the root cause is a wrong HTTP answer from googlecode.com web server which  is a long outstanding bug ;-)

 SPECS/synergy.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://synergy.googlecode.com/files/synergy-1.3.7-Source.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
-> same false positive as above

 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

* naming: OK
- spec file name matches package name

* sources: OK
- Source tag ok
- spectool -g works

* License: OK
- GPLv2 is a Fedora approved License
- License in spec file matches the actual license (as mentioned in the source files)
- License file packaged

* spec file written in American English and legible: OK

* buildroot: TODO
- %clean not necessary anymore
- rm -rf in %install not necessary anymore
- specification of BuildRoot is not necessary anymore
- see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

* compilation: OK
- builds fine in koji: rawhide

* BuildRequires: OK

* Requires: OK (n/a)

* bundled copies of system libraries: OK (n/a)

* locales handling: OK (n/a)

* ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK (n/a)

* package owns all directories that it creates: OK

* %files section: OK

* no files listed twice in %files: OK

* file permissions: OK

* macro usage: OK

* code vs. content: OK (no content)

* main package should not contain development related parts: OK (n/a)

* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)

* header files in -devel subpackage: OK (n/a)

* static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a)

* *.so link in -devel package: OK (n/a)

* devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: (n/a)

* packages must not contain *.la files: OK (n/a)

* GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a)

* packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK

* all filenames UTF-8: OK

* debuginfo sub-package: OK
- package contains source
- debugging works

* functional test: OK

Summary:
The packages is in a very good shape, there are only the 2 minor items:
- to be in accordance with the guidelines, let the package provide synergy-plus
- although the buildroot issue would not really block the review, please
fix this as well to have a nice and clean spec file

I've added the missing "Provides: synergy-plus = %{version}-%{release}" but I would prefer leaving the buildroot and %clean since I'll continue to share the same spec file on the EPEL5 branch.

Spec URL: http://thias.fedorapeople.org/review/synergy/synergy.spec
SRPM URL: http://thias.fedorapeople.org/review/synergy/synergy-1.3.7-3.src.rpm

Thanks a lot for the review!

Thanks for the new package.

(In reply to comment #6)
> I've added the missing "Provides: synergy-plus = %{version}-%{release}" but I

Ok.

> would prefer leaving the buildroot and %clean since I'll continue to share the
> same spec file on the EPEL5 branch.

Fair enough, that's an understandble reason and as I read the packaging guidelines its usage may be deprecated but not forbidden.

All mentioned issues were taken care of:

-> APPROVED

Note : This is to unretire the package.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: synergy
New Branches: f14 f15 f16
Owners: thias, chkr

Git done (by process-git-requests).

synergy-1.3.7-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/synergy-1.3.7-3.fc16

synergy-1.3.7-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/synergy-1.3.7-3.fc15

synergy-1.3.7-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/synergy-1.3.7-3.fc14

Package synergy-1.3.7-3.fc16:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing synergy-1.3.7-3.fc16'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14788
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

synergy-1.3.7-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

synergy-1.3.7-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

synergy-1.3.7-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.