Bug 952355
| Summary: | Review Request: hovercraft - Makes impress.js presentations from reStructuredText | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ralph Bean <rbean> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | notting, package-review, puiterwijk |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | puiterwijk:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-08-10 12:31:04 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: | 951711, 952343 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Ralph Bean
2013-04-15 18:52:02 UTC
Since this sounds really nice and useful, I'll take the review! OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. NO, See below - License CC0/BSD NO - License field in spec matches NO, See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream sha256sum: This package: c21eb09e6e0e5b8fd34275fda08fdd30e52dcf09b22b2ab3293a16287fd212c6 Upstream package: c21eb09e6e0e5b8fd34275fda08fdd30e52dcf09b22b2ab3293a16287fd212c6 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) OK, See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Rpmlint output: Checking: hovercraft-1.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm hovercraft.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure hovercraft.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure hovercraft.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repositioning -> re positioning, re-positioning, positioning hovercraft.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/hovercraft/templates/simple/js/impress.js /usr/share/impressjs/impress.js hovercraft.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/hovercraft/templates/default/js/impress.js /usr/share/impressjs/impress.js hovercraft.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hovercraft 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. The dangling symlinks are bogus: after installation they work. Spelling errors can be neglected in this case. Issues: 1. This package contains reST.xsl, which is licensed BSD. Maybe add this as well to the spec file? 2. The package does not contain a COPYING file. Please ask upstream to include it. OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. NO, See below - License CC0/BSD NO - License field in spec matches NO, See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream sha256sum: This package: c21eb09e6e0e5b8fd34275fda08fdd30e52dcf09b22b2ab3293a16287fd212c6 Upstream package: c21eb09e6e0e5b8fd34275fda08fdd30e52dcf09b22b2ab3293a16287fd212c6 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) OK, See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Rpmlint output: Checking: hovercraft-1.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm hovercraft.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure hovercraft.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure hovercraft.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repositioning -> re positioning, re-positioning, positioning hovercraft.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/hovercraft/templates/simple/js/impress.js /usr/share/impressjs/impress.js hovercraft.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/hovercraft/templates/default/js/impress.js /usr/share/impressjs/impress.js hovercraft.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hovercraft 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. The dangling symlinks are bogus: after installation they work. Spelling errors can be neglected in this case. Issues: 1. This package contains reST.xsl, which is licensed BSD. Maybe add this as well to the spec file? 2. The package does not contain a COPYING file. Please ask upstream to include it. Also, please note that until the python3-lxml 3.2.1 update lands for F17/F18, you will not be able to get it into those repositories. Also, it will not be possible to get this into EL5/6 repositories. Regarding python3-lxml, noted. I'll only request an f19 branch. License ping with upstream This is non-blocking, correct? https://github.com/regebro/hovercraft/issues/25 Here's a new release with the BSD comment added: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/hovercraft.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/hovercraft-1.1-2.fc18.src.rpm Regarding python3-lxml: feel free to request F18/F17 branches, as you will be able to build/push those as soon as the python3-lxml 3.2.1 builds that are currently in testing land in stable. Thanks for updating spec file with license. This package is APPROVED New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: hovercraft Short Description: Makes impress.js presentations from reStructuredText Owners: ralph Branches: f19 f18 f17 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). hovercraft-1.1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hovercraft-1.1-3.fc19 hovercraft-1.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hovercraft-1.1-3.fc18 hovercraft-1.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. hovercraft-1.1-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. Updates have been pushed to stable. Closing this ticket. |