Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/qt5-CutyCapt.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/SRPMS/qt5-CutyCapt-0-0.1.20130714svn.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: CutyCapt is a small cross-platform command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page into a variety of vector and bitmap formats, including SVG, PDF, PS, PNG, JPEG, TIFF, GIF, and BMP.
Upstream consistently refer to the application as CutyCapt, so I've kept the package name case-sensitive as advised by: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity
I will review this.
$ koji build --scratch rawhide qt5-CutyCapt-0-0.1.20130714svn.fc21.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6680630 $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/*.rpm qt5-CutyCapt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: cutycapt-20130714.tar.xz qt5-CutyCapt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CutyCapt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
I only have one question about the license - It is my understanding that license not provided by upstream cannot be included. Please clarify. Other than that - no issues. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1081726-qt5-CutyCapt/licensecheck.txt ---> No problem here. License is stated in the source file. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 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). [!]: 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. ---> The license file is not present in upstream source (not part of SVN checkout) but has been added. It is my understanding that this is not allowed. Please clarify. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ---> email sent to upstream is mentioned. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. ---> The license file is not present in upstream source (not part of SVN checkout) but has been added. It is my understanding that this is not allowed. Please clarify. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ---> source tarball generation explained in the comments. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: qt5-CutyCapt-0-0.1.20130714svn.fc21.x86_64.rpm qt5-CutyCapt-0-0.1.20130714svn.fc21.src.rpm qt5-CutyCapt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CutyCapt qt5-CutyCapt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: cutycapt-20130714.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint qt5-CutyCapt qt5-CutyCapt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CutyCapt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- qt5-CutyCapt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5OpenGL.so.5()(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Svg.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebKit.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebKitWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- qt5-CutyCapt: qt5-CutyCapt qt5-CutyCapt(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1081726 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
I noticed that I missed the reference to LGPL, so I've amended the License tag. I believe I also incorrectly named this package with a "qt5-" prefix, which I think is just for packages that are part of the base Qt5 software. I've renamed to just CutyCapt. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/CutyCapt.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/SRPMS/CutyCapt-0-0.2.20130714svn.fc21.src.rpm * Sat Mar 29 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 0-0.2.20130714svn - rename to CutyCapt - include copies of both GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 - amend License tag (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4) > I only have one question about the license - It is my understanding that > license not provided by upstream cannot be included. > > Please clarify. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text which states: > In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires > that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the > binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the > license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases, > anywhere), the packager should do their best to point out this > confusion to upstream. > > However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, > or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the > source code, and the indicated license requires that the full > license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either: > > - Include a copy of what they believe the license text is > intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in > order to remain in compliance.
> (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4) > > I only have one question about the license - It is my understanding that > > license not provided by upstream cannot be included. > > > > Please clarify. > > See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > which states: > > In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires > > that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the > > binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the > > license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases, > > anywhere), the packager should do their best to point out this > > confusion to upstream. > > > > However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, > > or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the > > source code, and the indicated license requires that the full > > license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either: > > > > - Include a copy of what they believe the license text is > > intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in > > order to remain in compliance. Hi! Sorry - I think I was not very clear. I had referred to the guidelines and what I wanted to ask is actually in the quoted text - "However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included .... " Is this (unresponsive/unable, etc.) the case or would you prefer to wait a couple of days for upstream to (potentially) add the license? If you think it does not make a big difference, I am perfectly fine with approving the package as my understanding is that the current status is still in compliance.
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #6) > Is this (unresponsive/unable, etc.) the case or would you prefer to wait a > couple of days for upstream to (potentially) add the license? Unfortunately, the response from upstream so far comes under the "unwilling" category. There is a possibility that upstream will change their mind. I don't think that should by itself hold back the introduction of this package into Fedora.
Yup! Package APPROVED.
Thanks Mukundan!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: CutyCapt Short Description: A small command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page Owners: jamielinux Branches: f20 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).