Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/master/birdie/birdie.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/raw/master/birdie/birdie-1.1-0.fc20.src.rpm Description: A beautiful GNOME Twitter client for the Linux Desktop. Fedora Account System Username: ryanlerch
Some quick comments - * gcc-c++ does not need to explicitly specified in BuildRequires * source URL missing --- https://github.com/birdieapp/birdie/archive/1.1.tar.gz rpmlint output - birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/sv/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/tr/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/uk/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/vi/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo birdie.src: W: strange-permission birdie-1.1.tar.gz 0600L birdie.src:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) birdie.src: W: invalid-url Source0: birdie-1.1.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 32 warnings. Some information from minGW on file-not-in%lang - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint#file-not-in-.25lang
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > Some quick comments - > > * gcc-c++ does not need to explicitly specified in BuildRequires Fixed. > * source URL missing > --- https://github.com/birdieapp/birdie/archive/1.1.tar.gz That URL actually resolves to download birdie-1.1.tar.gz. Added a comment above the source0 line stating that this is the URL. Is there a better way to handle it? > rpmlint output - > > birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/locale/sv/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo > birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/locale/tr/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo > birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/locale/uk/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo > birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/locale/vi/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo > birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo > birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo > birdie.src: W: strange-permission birdie-1.1.tar.gz 0600L > birdie.src:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) > birdie.src: W: invalid-url Source0: birdie-1.1.tar.gz > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 32 warnings. > > Some information from minGW on file-not-in%lang > - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint#file-not-in-.25lang removed the stray tab that got in there. Also, how did you run rpmline to get the file-not-in%lang errors? I can not reproduce those.
(In reply to Ryan Lerch from comment #2) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > > * source URL missing > > --- https://github.com/birdieapp/birdie/archive/1.1.tar.gz > > That URL actually resolves to download birdie-1.1.tar.gz. Added a comment > above the source0 line stating that this is the URL. Is there a better way > to handle it? > Updated the source URL to the format in this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/194210.html and it works now. On my end, RPM lint is not producing any warnings anymore.
(In reply to Ryan Lerch from comment #2) > > Also, how did you run rpmline to get the file-not-in%lang errors? I can not > reproduce those. The line below indicates it's the binary rpm. You can build the package in mock and run rpmlint on source and binary rpms which is what produced those rpmlint warnings. I ran fedora-review. > > birdie.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > > /usr/share/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES/birdie.mo Also, I will take this for review.
Just noticed - the release tag should start with 1 - as in - 1%{?dist} Quoting from the naming guidelines - " ... The release number (referred to in some older documentation as a "vepoch") is how the maintainer marks build revisions, starting from 1. ..." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
Take a look at this page for handling locales - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files I will do a more detailed review later tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks for packaging birdie, I finally don't need to submit it by myself. 1. Summary: A twitter client for Linux Since we all use Linux, this summary looks not perfect, would you like to improve it? With some fantastic words if you can... 2. I see an appdata file, I just talked with Richard, and I think we need to improve the guideline like desktop file, so please use that tool provided from appdata to validate or install the file.
3. %description bad, please visit upstream and give some love here. 4. Granite is going to be included in Fedora. You can add it later as BR.
Is the granite build requires needed for birdie to work in pantheon - because, it seems to build fine without granite at the moment ... (I can verify that again).
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #9) > Is the granite build requires needed for birdie to work in pantheon - > because, it seems to build fine without granite at the moment ... (I can > verify that again). It's an optional requirement, I will track it and file bug later after this gets approved. So currently we don't need it.
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7) > Thanks for packaging birdie, I finally don't need to submit it by myself. > > 1. Summary: A twitter client for Linux > > Since we all use Linux, this summary looks not perfect, would you like to > improve it? With some fantastic words if you can... Summary is okay. It is concise, and accurately describes what birdie is. > > 2. I see an appdata file, I just talked with Richard, and I think we need to > improve the guideline like desktop file, so please use that tool provided > from appdata to validate or install the file. I have had reviews before that contain appdata files, and i included them in the same manner as this package. If you want the packaging guidelines changed, please email devel-list. This is not the best place to discuss new packaging guidlines. Leaving the appdata inclusion the same
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #8) > 3. %description bad, please visit upstream and give some love here. Please clarify what makes it "bad". I have no idea what you mean here. The description also concisely desribes what the birdie package is and does. > > 4. Granite is going to be included in Fedora. You can add it later as BR. granite is not in fedora, and is an optional BuildRequires. File a bug once the package is in.
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5) > Just noticed - the release tag should start with 1 - as in - 1%{?dist} > > Quoting from the naming guidelines - > > " ... The release number (referred to in some older documentation as a > "vepoch") is how the maintainer marks build revisions, starting from 1. ..." > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag Thanks Mukundan! I have fixed this in this commit: https://github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/commit/fad7d705244513a3730e63cb71087e13b7b4931a cheers, ryanlerch
That looks good Ryan. Please also fix the LOCALE issues as described in wiki (comment 6)
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #14) > That looks good Ryan. Please also fix the LOCALE issues as described in wiki > (comment 6) Thanks Mukundan! Fixed the LOCALE issue with the following commit: https://github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/commit/ad915157a2b06cfe040b4e5d862212b15c128fbd cheers, ryanlerch
That fixes the locale problem. There are few other issues. Please see below. Also, please do a koji scratch build. Please add BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in birdie See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ===== MUST items ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/birdie/licensecheck.txt ---> This looks fine. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/indicators/messages, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications ---> I have to look at it further. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications, /usr/share/appdata, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/indicators/messages ---> This looks fine. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in birdie [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in birdie [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: 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. ---> It builds on mock for me. Please do a koji scratch build. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: birdie-1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm birdie-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm birdie.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdie 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint birdie birdie.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdie 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- birdie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcanberra.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgee.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libjavascriptcoregtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpurple.so.0()(64bit) librest-0.7.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libwebkitgtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- birdie: application() application(birdie.desktop) birdie birdie(x86-64) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/birdie) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/birdieapp/birdie/archive/1.1/birdie-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c9b652b157f09241197c859d2c77f14becaf1b1031b1d2140dcc052a6227a338 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c9b652b157f09241197c859d2c77f14becaf1b1031b1d2140dcc052a6227a338 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/mukundan/rpmbuild/SRPMS/birdie-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
OK, I took care of the koji builds. The package builds on all architectures (with BR added spec file and SRPM). http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6566098 Please make sure BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is added.
so all left to do is to add desktop-file-utils to the buildrequires?
And this, Issues: ======= - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in birdie See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
I am looking at the packaging guidelines again to confirm the status on this - [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/indicators/messages, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications ---> I have to look at it further. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications, /usr/share/appdata, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/indicators/messages ---> I have to look at it further.
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #19) > And this, > > Issues: > ======= > - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains > desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. > Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in birdie > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database Okies, these two should be fixed in this commit: https://github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/commit/55249ef30961e67cd3a0f4bfe4747cc084a2fee5 Also kicked off a koji build with this new version: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6566800 cheers, ryanlerch
Ryan, That looks good. I think almost everything is done. Just a couple of minor issues and then I think it's done. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/indicators/messages, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications, /usr/share/appdata, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/indicators/messages Here, based on my discussion on #fedora-devel, we can ignore the messages about the locales since these should be owned by the filesystem. The package must own /usr/share/indicators. So, add in %files section %{_datadir}/indicators/* instead of /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications/birdie so that the directory is owned by the package. Based on - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_wholly_contained_in_your_package.2C_or_involves_core_functionality_of_your_package I believe that should be it. If you could please fix that, upload the spec and srpm (link is broken), I can run fedora-review again (just in case) and approve the package.
Sorry! There is a typo - my comment should read as - add in %files section %{_datadir}/indicators/ This will own everything under it.
> Summary: A twitter client for Linux Even more concise would be: Summary: Twitter client Or, since the %description mentions "GNOME", also mention "GNOME" in the %summary if it's considered relevant. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Examples_of_good_package_summaries It's widely accepted practice to omit leading articles, such as "A", "An" and "The". There are exceptions, however. > %description > A beautiful GNOME Twitter client for Linux The description ought to be built from full sentences including punctuation marks. The upstream spec file at https://github.com/birdieapp/birdie/blob/master/birdie.spec contains: Birdie is a beautiful Twitter client for Linux. For the description and unlike %summary, it isn't a bad idea to repeat the program name with its correct spelling. For both summary and description, why is "Linux" mentioned? Is that important?
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #22) > Ryan, That looks good. I think almost everything is done. Just a couple of > minor issues and then I think it's done. > > [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, > /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/indicators/messages, > /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, > /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications > > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/indicators, > /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, > /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications, /usr/share/appdata, > /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, > /usr/share/indicators/messages > > Here, based on my discussion on #fedora-devel, we can ignore the messages > about the locales since these should be owned by the filesystem. If it's a bug in filesystem package, please report.
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #22) > Ryan, That looks good. I think almost everything is done. Just a couple of > minor issues and then I think it's done. > > [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, > /usr/share/indicators, /usr/share/indicators/messages, > /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, > /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications > > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/indicators, > /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin, > /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications, /usr/share/appdata, > /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, > /usr/share/indicators/messages > > Here, based on my discussion on #fedora-devel, we can ignore the messages > about the locales since these should be owned by the filesystem. > > The package must own /usr/share/indicators. > > So, add in %files section > > %{_datadir}/indicators/* > > instead of /usr/share/indicators/messages/applications/birdie so that the > directory is owned by the package. > > Based on - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#The_directory_is_wholly_contained_in_your_package. > 2C_or_involves_core_functionality_of_your_package > > I believe that should be it. > > If you could please fix that, upload the spec and srpm (link is broken), I > can run fedora-review again (just in case) and approve the package. Thanks, Updated and pushed to my git repo here. https://github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/commit/b85b072fea776ff597f50219d5b20025acea9510
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/master/birdie/birdie.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/ryanlerch/my-fedora-package-reviews/raw/master/birdie/birdie-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
Would you be interested in looking in to updating the description and summary as per Michael's suggestion (comment #24)?
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #25) > If it's a bug in filesystem package, please report. Christopher, It's already done in rawhide. $ rpm -qf /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin filesystem-3.2-24.fc21.x86_64
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #28) > Would you be interested in looking in to updating the description and > summary as per Michael's suggestion (comment #24)? I am happy with the way it is.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1068747-birdie/licensecheck.txt ---> This is fine. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin ---> Verified that these directories are owned by filesystem in rawhide. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/appdata, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/sr_RS@latin ---> This is fine. appdata is owned by other packages in rawhide. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in birdie [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in birdie [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in birdie [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: birdie-1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm birdie-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm birdie.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdie 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint birdie birdie.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdie 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- birdie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcanberra.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgee.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libjavascriptcoregtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpurple.so.0()(64bit) librest-0.7.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libwebkitgtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- birdie: application() application(birdie.desktop) birdie birdie(x86-64) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/birdie) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/birdieapp/birdie/archive/1.1/birdie-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c9b652b157f09241197c859d2c77f14becaf1b1031b1d2140dcc052a6227a338 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c9b652b157f09241197c859d2c77f14becaf1b1031b1d2140dcc052a6227a338 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1068747 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG **** Package APPROVED **** Cheers, Ryan!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: birdie Short Description: A twitter client for Linux Owners: ryanlerch Branches: f20
Git done (by process-git-requests).
birdie-1.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/birdie-1.1-1.fc20
birdie-1.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
birdie-1.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.