Bug 946968 (pcmanfm-qt)
Summary: | Review Request: pcmanfm-qt - Qt port of the LXDE file manager PCManFM | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Eugene A. Pivnev <ti.eugene> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | gwync, kevin, notting, package-review, rdieter, than, ti.eugene |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | ti.eugene:
fedora-review+
|
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-06-03 16:42:42 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 928937 |
Description
Mamoru TASAKA
2013-04-01 05:26:21 UTC
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/pcmanfm-qt/pcmanfm-qt.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/pcmanfm-qt/pcmanfm-qt-0.1.0-2.fc.src.rpm * Mon Apr 1 2013 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> - 0.1.0-2 - Call update-desktop-database - Use make soversion specific in %%files 1. Please - separate spec sections other then expressions inside them - e.g. with double CR. It's too hard to read spec now. 2. maybe to add -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release to %cmake will be better (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044#c22) (In reply to comment #2) > 1. Please - separate spec sections other then expressions inside them - e.g. > with double CR. It's too hard to read spec now. Well, even if I add one more new line between section, after review passed I again cut such extra line... (I agree that at least one line is needed between sections, but "two" lines are just redundant) > 2. maybe to add -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release to %cmake will be better > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044#c22) May consider afterwards. I will wait for full reviews to see what are real blockers, thank you. Despite pcmanfm-qt is stil buggy now (working with remote FS like ssh/webdav) - _formally_ it can be packaged. I get it on review IMHO, the spacing between sections is fine as is, it's definitely not a review criterion. I'd remove the blank lines INSIDE the %prep, %install and %files sections though, then the blank lines between the sections become better demarcators. IMHO, the sections are not so large that they need cutting into chunks with blank lines. But again, the specfile is legible as is, so this is mostly a matter of personal taste. (In reply to comment #5) > IMHO, the spacing between sections is fine as is, it's definitely not a > review criterion. I'd remove the blank lines INSIDE the %prep, %install and > %files sections though, then the blank lines between the sections become > better demarcators. IMHO, the sections are not so large that they need > cutting into chunks with blank lines. But again, the specfile is legible as > is, so this is mostly a matter of personal taste. I agree that spec format is not blocker for review. But some kind of readability must be. As for me - I separate sections with one CR and no one blank CR inside sections. Package Review ============== ===== MUST items ===== [+]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [+]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [+]: Development files must be in a -devel package [+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [+]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [+]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [+]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [+]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [+]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [+]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [+]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [+]: update-desktop-database is invoked when required [+]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [+]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. ===== SHOULD items ===== [+]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [+]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [+]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [+]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [+]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [+]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pcmanfm-qt-0.1.0-2.fc17.i686.rpm libfm-qt-0.1.0-2.fc17.i686.rpm libfm-qt-devel-0.1.0-2.fc17.i686.rpm pcmanfm-qt.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcmanfm-qt libfm-qt-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libfm-qt libfm-qt-devel pcmanfm-qt libfm-qt.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libfm-qt.so.0.0.0 /lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 libfm-qt.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libfm-qt.so.0.0.0 /lib/librt.so.1 libfm-qt.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libfm-qt.so.0.0.0 /lib/libX11.so.6 libfm-qt.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libfm-qt.so.0.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6 libfm-qt-devel.i686: W: no-documentation pcmanfm-qt.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcmanfm-qt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (sources) ----------------- rpmlint pcmanfm-qt.spec pcmanfm-qt-0.1.0-2.fc.src.rpm pcmanfm-qt.spec:72: W: non-break-space line 72, char 39 pcmanfm-qt.spec:75: W: non-break-space line 75, char 39 MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pcmanfm/pcmanfm-qt-0.1.0-Source.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2a738a0b48d2fb148978fa8b80e3426ab121c9b5ee5b04a894fd8f73d9b4567e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2a738a0b48d2fb148978fa8b80e3426ab121c9b5ee5b04a894fd8f73d9b4567e = Resume = It is my first review. Approved? Silence... Ok - Approved. But - tune spec before bodhi: * resolve "-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=release" question * non-break-space line 72, char 39, non-break-space line 75, char 39 Okay, thank you. I will upload new srpm anyway. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/pcmanfm-qt/pcmanfm-qt.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/pcmanfm-qt/pcmanfm-qt-0.1.0-3.fc.src.rpm * Mon Apr 8 2013 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> - 0.1.0-3 - Use -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release option for cmake non-break-space rpmlint issue also fixed. By the way, would you - change the status to ASSIGNED - change the assignee to yourself - and change fedora-review flag ? Thank you. Have you checked that this doesn't end up adding -O3 to the build flags? And if not, does it even have any effect at all? (By default, it defines NDEBUG, some projects also add QT_NO_DEBUG.) (In reply to comment #11) > Have you checked that this doesn't end up adding -O3 to the build flags? And > if not, does it even have any effect at all? (By default, it defines NDEBUG, > some projects also add QT_NO_DEBUG.) See some dirty hack after %cmake macro (well, perhaps adding extra -Dfoo=bar to %cmake would perhaps be enough, however for me this way is more explicit and easy to understand) By the way -O3 issue seems to be already in discussion on bug 875954 . I have to disagree, passing -D flags to CMake is much cleaner than postprocessing CMake output (yuck!). (In reply to comment #14) > I have to disagree, passing -D flags to CMake is much cleaner than > postprocessing CMake output (yuck!). I want to change "-O3" to "-O2" only, not anything else on CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE. Specifying CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE as a whole means that we may blindly change other flags than -O3 in CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE, which is not desirable. Anyway I think this is left to package, just making -O3 unused is enough and which way to use is not a blocker. Eugene, if this is okay, would you change this bug appropriately? Kevin, if you have some way like -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=<default value | sed -e 's|-O3||'>, I may consider to use it. So as I see that fedora-review flag was set to + by the reviewer, I will arrange the left properly... As this package was approved by comment 8 and fedora-review flag: New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcmanfm-qt Short Description: Qt port of the LXDE file manager PCManFM Owners: mtasaka Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC: (In reply to comment #17) > So as I see that fedora-review flag was set to + by the reviewer, I will > arrange the left properly... Don't forget that pcmanfm-qt is still too buggy (working with gvfs). And has no feedback (issue/bug tracker). Yes, pcmanfm-qt is still under development and I will keep an eye on the upstream development. Git done (by process-git-requests). Successfully built, push requested on bodhi for F-19/18/17. Closing. Thank you for review and git procedure. Unsetting flag. we need this packagw in epel7 New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcmanfm-qt Short Description: Qt port of the LXDE file manager PCManFM Branches: epel7 InitialCC: See new process: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests |