Bug 956737 (recoverjpeg)
Summary: | Review Request: recoverjpeg - Recover jpeg pictures and mov movies from damaged devices | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christopher Meng <i> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Markus Mayer <LotharLutz> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | LotharLutz, mail, misc, notting, package-review, psabata, rc040203 |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | LotharLutz:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc19 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-06-07 23:48:25 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: | 563471 |
Description
Christopher Meng
2013-04-25 14:03:14 UTC
2 issues. One packaging issue: %configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --mandir=%{_datadir}/man %configure already sets --prefix/--mandir. The --prefix..--mandir are redundant and should be removed. One upstream issue: Makefile.am contains this: recovermov_LDADD = -lstdc++ libstdc++ is an internal implementation detail of c++, which means c++-compilers will pull it in when needed and also means libstdc++ should not be explictily linked against. (In reply to comment #1) All 2 issues fixed. New upstream release: Spec URL: http://cicku.me/recoverjpeg.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc20.src.rpm taking this... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/markus/tmp/review/956737-recoverjpeg/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm recoverjpeg.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libexif recoverjpeg.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jpeg -> peg, j peg, Peg recoverjpeg.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mov -> mob, mo, move 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Issues: [!]: 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. - Please include COPYING withing %doc [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). - what is the reason for explicit require of libexif? Isn't '/usr/bin/exif' sufficent - maybe '/usr/bin/identify' is a better choice then 'Requires: ImageMagick' [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - think about using 'install -p' Except the identify, I've fixed all at: Spec URL: http://cicku.me/recoverjpeg.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/recoverjpeg-2.2.3-2.fc20.src.rpm Can you tell me advantages of changing to the path of identify for Requires? Thanks. Actually, there two separate issues: 1. Explicit requiring a lib: In general, when a package requires any lib, rpm recognizes this automatically. So explicit lib requires are unnecessary (and also more error prone than letting rpm do it). (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires for more information) If I understand it correctly this package does not require libexif (libexif.so), but '/usr/bin/exif' (which is provided by exif). This must be fixed (either by requiring '/usr/bin/exif' or exif). 2. advantages of a file: - Multiple packages could provide the file - unaffected by package renames This is just a suggestion, if you want to require the packages by name I am also fine with it. I think I've fixed. I'll keep imaginemagick instead of /usr/bin/identify. Please review again in Comment 4, thanks. This package is APPROVED New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: recoverjpeg Short Description: Recover jpeg pictures and mov movies from damaged devices Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc18 recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc19 recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. recoverjpeg-2.2.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. |