Bug 854837
Summary: | Review Request: inkscape-sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | a.badger, bazanluis20, echevemaster, fedora, guillermo.gomez, itamar, notting, package-review, pikachu.2014, richzendy | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | itamar:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2012-12-03 02:25:24 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Eduardo Echeverria
2012-09-06 06:28:40 UTC
######################## Koji Build F18 ############################### http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4460058 ######################## Koji Build F16 ############################### http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4460066 the package it's fine, just try use %{__mkdir} instead mkdir (cosmetic change) (In reply to comment #2) > the package it's fine, just try use %{__mkdir} instead mkdir (cosmetic > change) No, such macros are deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311#c14 Eduardo: sozi is an extension for inkscape; you should then name your package "inkscape-sozi": http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29 (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > the package it's fine, just try use %{__mkdir} instead mkdir (cosmetic > > change) > No, such macros are deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669311#c14 > > Eduardo: sozi is an extension for inkscape; you should then name your > package "inkscape-sozi": > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_. > 28General.29 Thanks Edwin Thanks Mohamed New Spec and SRPM Spec URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/inkscape-sozi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.src.rpm ########################### RPMLINT ################################ $ rpmlint -i inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ########################## Koji Build f17 ########################## http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4460918 Hi Edwin must complete the %build section. Regards! And spaces between lines changelog :) (In reply to comment #5) > Hi Edwin > > must complete the %build section. > > Regards! Hi Luis and Thanks No need% build section, the application instructions in http://sozi.baierouge.fr/wiki/en:install only request copy files to the folder inkscape extensions (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Hi Edwin > > > > must complete the %build section. > > > > Regards! > > Hi Luis and Thanks > No need% build section, the application instructions in > http://sozi.baierouge.fr/wiki/en:install only request copy files to the > folder inkscape extensions New Spec and SRPM Spec URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/inkscape-sozi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/inkscape-sozi-12.05-3.fc17.src.rpm Hello, I am not sponsered so this is an informal review. If i claim anything wrong please correct me (still learning): Problems (MUST): [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. One of your changelog entries has a trailing $. Format should be version-release. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. If the source is dual licensed use "or" instead of "and": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios [!]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Problems (SHOULD): [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (sozi-release-12.05-08120927.zip) Since this is the way it is released by upstream i think it is ok. But fedora-review complained about it. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. According to this list: https://github.com/senshu/Sozi/downloads 12.09 is available Questions: [?]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) Question: Why is Provides: %{pkgname} = %{version}-%{release} needed? [?]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. See question above Not checked: [?]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [?]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Rpmlint ------- Checking: inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.src.rpm inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.noarch.rpm inkscape-sozi.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 12.05-08120927-2$ ['12.05-2.fc17', '12.05-2'] inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_upgrade.inx inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.js inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi.inx inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo_upgrade.py inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi.css inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.inx inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_upgrade.py inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 1 warnings. I doubt that these files are intended to be runnable / executable. They do not look executable to me. So i do not know why they show up. Can sombody more expirienced clear me up? MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/downloads/senshu/Sozi/sozi-release-12.05-08120927. zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55b0e1c0351feb3cd6f28e72019f3f93aa02d609cabc7b96b749914bc2b1c24e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55b0e1c0351feb3cd6f28e72019f3f93aa02d609cabc7b96b749914bc2b1c24e Full review file is uploaded. Best regards, Erik Schilling Created attachment 610409 [details]
Full review file
(In reply to comment #10) > Created attachment 610409 [details] > Full review file Thanks Erik The version 12.09 is not stable even https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups = #! Topic/sozi-users/K33c12EcQqM The license file is located in: %files %doc install-en.html GPL-license.txt install-fr.html MIT-license.txt Other changes based on your comments in: New Spec and SRPM Spec URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/inkscape-sozi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/inkscape-sozi-12.05-4.fc17.src.rpm New Spec and SRPM Spec URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/5/inkscape-sozi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/5/inkscape-sozi-12.05-5.fc17.src.rpm #####################Koji Build f17 ############################## http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4466933 #################### Koji Build f18 ############################## http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4466935 ############################ rpmlint SRPM ######################## $ rpmlint -i inkscape-sozi-12.05-5.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ############################ rpmlint RPM ######################## $ rpmlint -i rpmlint -i inkscape-sozi-12.05-5.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. itamarjp has agreed to mentor you. I will sponsor you into the packager group and itamar will be your primary contact for help learning how to package for Fedora. You can also contact me (abadger1999 on irc) if there's any questions that itamar cannot answer. Thank you very much Toshio and Itamar, in waiting for your valuable comments regards Eduardo, please look at koji build logs. warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi.css ... ... warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi_upgrade.pyo adding the flowing line into %files section. %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi* will include all files starting with sozi. when you list the files starting with sozi again, gives the warning. %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_upgrade.inx* %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.js* %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi.inx* %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo_upgrade.py* %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi.css* %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.inx* %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi_upgrade.py* %attr(644,root,root) %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi.js* look -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_section %defattr(<file permissions>, <user>, <group>, <directory permissions>) what do you think about cleaning your %files section to something like this -> %files %defattr(0644,root,root,-) %doc install-en.html GPL-license.txt install-fr.html MIT-license.txt %{_datadir}/inkscape/extensions/sozi* I think will produce same result, with installed files set as 0644, and no warning about files listed twice in build log. Changes Ready Itamar: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/inkscape-sozi/inkscape-sozi-12.05-6.fc17.src.rpm http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/inkscape-sozi/inkscape-sozi.spec $ rpmlint -i inkscape-sozi-12.05-6.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings $ rpmlint -i inkscape-sozi-12.05-6.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/inkscape-sozi/7/inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17.src.rpm http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/inkscape-sozi/7/inkscape-sozi.spec $ rpmlint -i inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings $ rpmlint -i inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. this is the last officially published in upstream website. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Rpmlint ------- [itamar@localhost sozi]$ rpmlint inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17.src.rpm /home/itamar/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- [itamar@localhost sozi]$ rpm -q --requires inkscape-sozi /usr/bin/env inkscape pygtk2 python-lxml python2 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Provides -------- [itamar@localhost sozi]$ rpm -q --provides inkscape-sozi inkscape-sozi = 12.05-7.fc17 sha1sum check ------------- 81bb720147892690539e567e6937cb21b9e09e85 http://cloud.github.com/downloads/senshu/Sozi/sozi-release-12.05-08120927.zip 81bb720147892690539e567e6937cb21b9e09e85 sozi-release-12.05-08120927.zip in src.rpm Package APPROVED please follow this package and request a git repository. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: inkscape-sozi Short Description: Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations Owners: echevemaster Branches: f17 f18 devel InitialCC: toshio itamarjp Git done (by process-git-requests). inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17 inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc18 inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. |