Bug 771462

Hello Soumya.
You must provide the 'Group' of the package. After that I'm offering to review this.

hey Matthia, 

Is it okay if I review this package please? Soumya's helped me with one of my reviews, and as a review swap, I'd like to review this for him? 

Thanks,
Ankur

Hello Ankur, no problem for me: feel free to do the review if you want.

Thanks Matthia :)

/me takes over

Review:

+ OK
- NA
? ISSUE

+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
? License field in spec matches
^^ 
Wouldn't GPLv2+ be more appropriate than GPLv3 as per the following license check output?
aclocal.m4: GENERATED FILE
AUTHORS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
ChangeLog: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
config.guess: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
config.sub: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
configure: GENERATED FILE
configure.in: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
COPYING: UNKNOWN
depcomp: GPL GENERATED FILE
INSTALL: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like) 
ltmain.sh: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
main.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE
Makefile.am: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
Makefile.in: GENERATED FILE
missing: GPL GENERATED FILE
NEWS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
notewindow.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) 
README: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
wnote.1: UNKNOWN

? License file included in package
File included is GPLv3. Think this is OK, since the License is 2+.

+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
+ Sources match upstream md5sum:
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ spectool -g wnotes.spec
Getting http://wnotes.googlecode.com/files/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz to ./wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
  % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                 Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
100  319k  100  319k    0     0   294k      0  0:00:01  0:00:01 --:--:--  350k
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ md5sum wnotes-1.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7  wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7  ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$

- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.

+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

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

? Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
^^ This is a GUI, right?

+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
+ No rpmlint output.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ !rpmlint
rpmlint ../SPECS/wnotes.spec wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/wnotes-*.rpm
wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/main.cpp
wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/notewindow.cpp
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$

+ final provides and requires are sane:
== wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm ==
Provides:

Requires:
libX11-devel  
libXpm-devel  

== wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
wnotes = 1.2-1.fc16
wnotes(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16

Requires:
libX11.so.6()(64bit)  
libXpm.so.4()(64bit)  
libc.so.6()(64bit)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)  
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
libm.so.6()(64bit)  
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)  
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)  
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)  
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)  
rtld(GNU_HASH)  

== wnotes-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
wnotes-debuginfo = 1.2-1.fc16
wnotes-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16

Requires:


SHOULD Items:

+ Should build in mock.
+ Should build on all supported archs
? Should function as described.
^^ I installed and tried to run it. It fails with the following error:
[ankur@ankur result]$ wnote
X Error of failed request:  BadName (named color or font does not exist)
  Major opcode of failed request:  45 (X_OpenFont)
  Serial number of failed request:  23
  Current serial number in output stream:  24
[ankur@ankur result]$

You will need to see why this is happening and correct the package. Unfortunately, this is a BLOCKER.

- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
+ Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

1. Please see why it fails to run.
2. Please check the License, I feel GPLv2+ is more apt than 3.
3. A desktop file needs to be included if this is a GUI app.


Thanks,
Ankur

First of all sorry to resume again much late -

Issues -

1) It fails to run due to non-availability of specific X11 fonts package, I have mailed the upstream to include it in prerequisites.

2) License will be GPLv2+, though have mailed the upstream for clarification.
3) Upstream is notified to add a .desktop file.

The lates version of wnotes 1.17 has some compile issues, waiting for the upstream to rectify the source software along with the above 3 fixes.

Modified SPEC and SRPM url :

SRPM File : http://soumya.fedorapeople.org/wnotes/wnotes-1.20-1.fc17.src.rpm
SPEC File : http://soumya.fedorapeople.org/wnotes/wnotes.spec

Tried installing it from rpm generated and it installs fine. 

Ankur, please verify.

Hi Soumya,

It does run, but I can't write in it, or close it, or resize it. I'm on gnome3. Can you? Is this obsolete and not functional software any more?(In which case, there isn't a point packaging it up for fedora)

Thanks,
Ankur

Hi Soumya,

Are you going to pursue this review? Otherwise we can close it.

Thanks,
Ankur

I spoke with the developer earlier and I didn't get any suitable reply about gnome3 and its working. Also any other new releases has not come up. 

I think we can close the review for it.

Thanks
Soumya

Closing.