Bug 840437

Summary: Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Danishka Navin <danishka>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: callkalpa, mario.blaettermann, misc, notting, package-review, panemade, pbrobinson
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---Flags: mario.blaettermann: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-06-16 02:06:18 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Danishka Navin 2012-07-16 07:38:20 EDT
Spec URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor.spec

SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor-6-1.fc17.src.rpm


Editor for XO icon colors; this activity lets you explore different color patterns. You can use xoEditor to save these changes to your icon colors. 

Fedora Account System Username: snavin
Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2012-07-17 11:56:06 EDT

+ koji scratch build ->http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246639

+ rpmlint on rpms gave
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ Source verified with upstream as (sha1sum)
03a04f1089be6d54c056d70a32d97018db34d46e  xoEditor-6.tar.bz2
03a04f1089be6d54c056d70a32d97018db34d46e  ../SOURCES/xoEditor-6.tar.bz2

- License is GPLv3. 

1) Change the license tag to GPLv3+

2) Remove the following line from spec
Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2012-07-18 03:33:28 EDT
Recent update looks Ok.

Comment 5 Michael Scherer 2012-08-15 18:29:44 EDT
Since the activity requires gconf, shouldn't a requires on gnome-python2-gconf be added ? ( the policy is not explicit into what is part of the base platform :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SugarActivityGuidelines )

There is also a bundled library in it ( sprites.py ), under a different license. Not sure if something need to be done there too.
Comment 6 Parag AN(पराग) 2012-12-10 22:19:44 EST
As I have already decided not to sponsor the reporter and its already been 4 months reporter has not sought any sponsorship from any other sponsor, pushing back this to new queue as I don't know what to do with this reviewed package ticket.
Comment 7 Mario Blättermann 2013-06-03 13:32:04 EDT
There's a new review request for the same package, bug #969671. I will mark this one as a duplicate, because there is no progress for almost one year.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 969671 ***
Comment 8 Danishka Navin 2013-06-03 22:55:09 EDT
I could not get the sponsorship till last week. Few days ago I got the sponsorship from Peter Robinson. I hope you have seen my requests in the devel list.
You have made the changed after I get the sponsorship.

I already sent the list of bugs to be review to Parag if he have free time to work on it.

You better asked before closing. :)

I will discus this with Kapla.
Comment 9 Kalpa Welivitigoda 2013-06-03 23:05:39 EDT

I didn't notice that you have already packaged and files a review request. You may continue with this and I'll mark mine a duplicate of this. You better file the request for the latest upstream version. Version 11 is there
Comment 10 Kalpa Welivitigoda 2013-06-03 23:05:39 EDT

I didn't notice that you have already packaged and files a review request. You may continue with this and I'll mark mine a duplicate of this. You better file the request for the latest upstream version. Version 11 is there
Comment 11 Kalpa Welivitigoda 2013-06-03 23:07:08 EDT
*** Bug 969671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 Mario Blättermann 2013-06-04 12:48:56 EDT
(In reply to Danishka Navin from comment #8)
> You better asked before closing. :)
Sorry for the inconvenience. I will do the review for you in return :)

python-devel is deprecated, use python2-devel instead:

is obsolete and can be dropped for all currently supported Fedora versions and

COPYING contains the GPLv3, not GPLv2. Moreover, licensecheck says:

$ licensecheck -r *
game.py: GPL (v3 or later)
setup.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
sprites.py: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
toolbar_utils.py: GPL (v3 or later)
XOEditorActivity.py: GPL (v3 or later)

That's why the license tag has to be "GPLv3+ and MIT"
Comment 15 Mario Blättermann 2013-06-05 13:11:11 EDT
Scratch build:

$ rpmlint -i -v *
sugar-xoeditor.src: I: checking
sugar-xoeditor.src: I: checking-url http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/XoEditor (timeout 10 seconds)
sugar-xoeditor.src: I: checking-url http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/xoEditor/xoEditor-11.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds)
sugar-xoeditor.noarch: I: checking
sugar-xoeditor.noarch: I: checking-url http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/XoEditor (timeout 10 seconds)
sugar-xoeditor.spec: I: checking-url http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/xoEditor/xoEditor-11.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint is happy :)


[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
    GPLv3+ and MIT
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
    $ sha256sum *
    2bd2829b77130606cbb0bc16793c49be3fcba0461da1b27eb9743642d14c8029  xoEditor-11.tar.bz2
    2bd2829b77130606cbb0bc16793c49be3fcba0461da1b27eb9743642d14c8029  xoEditor-11.tar.bz2.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[.] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] 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.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway).
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] 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.
[.] 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.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.



Comment 16 Danishka Navin 2013-06-05 21:15:32 EDT
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: sugar-xoeditor 
Short Description: Editor for xo icon colors
Owners: snavin
Branches: f17 f18 f19
Comment 17 Danishka Navin 2013-06-05 23:19:10 EDT
small mistake. I was suppose to set fedora-cvs?
Comment 18 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-06-06 07:46:13 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2013-06-08 11:35:52 EDT
sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2013-06-08 11:36:05 EDT
sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2013-06-08 11:36:15 EDT
sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2013-06-08 14:06:45 EDT
sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 02:06:18 EDT
sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
Comment 24 Fedora Update System 2013-06-17 21:32:00 EDT
sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Comment 25 Fedora Update System 2013-06-17 21:36:48 EDT
sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.