Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam-1.0.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Fedora Account System Username: rathann
Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam-1.0.10.1-1.fc20.src.rpm * Mon Jun 02 2014 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm> - 1.0.10.1-1 - updated to 1.0.10.1
Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam-1.0.10.2-1.fc20.src.rpm * Fri Oct 03 2014 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm> - 1.0.10.2-1 - updated to 1.0.10.2
Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm * Fri Mar 11 2016 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm> - 1.3.0-1 - update to 1.3.0 - package signed xpi from addons.mozilla.org - add missing license tags - add Provides for bundled stuff
I'm happy to review this, any chance you could take https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260 in return?
Sure, I'll review cmap-resources. Thanks!
Issues ====== * Version 1.3.1 seems to be available: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/; can you update the package, and I'll re-review? * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kalev/MozillaExtensionsDraft#Sample_Spec_File seems to sugggest that XPIs should be unpacked? I'm assuming that's no longer the case because of extension signing? * This is very minor, but rpmlint is unhappy that your bundled font provides are not versioned. The versioning information can be acquired by unzipping the XPI and running ttname -a over the font files. It'd probably be nice to include that information, though I wouldn't consider it a blocker for review. 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. [-]: 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1082825-mozilla- lightbeam/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}, /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a} [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.0-1.fc25.src.rpm mozilla-lightbeam.noarch: W: no-documentation mozilla-lightbeam.src:33: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(OpenSans-Bold.ttf) mozilla-lightbeam.src:34: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(OpenSans-Light.ttf) mozilla-lightbeam.src:35: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(OpenSans-LightItalic.ttf) mozilla-lightbeam.src:37: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(fontawesome-fonts-web) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mozilla-lightbeam.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- mozilla-lightbeam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mozilla-filesystem Provides -------- mozilla-lightbeam: bundled(OpenSans-Bold.ttf) bundled(OpenSans-Light.ttf) bundled(OpenSans-LightItalic.ttf) bundled(fontawesome-fonts-web) bundled(js-d3) bundled(js-parseuri) bundled(js-picomodal) mozilla-lightbeam Source checksums ---------------- https://addons.cdn.mozilla.net/user-media/addons/363974/lightbeam_for_firefox-1.3.0-fx.xpi : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8c3aa4d20355048fbe56131231f066235b2a540b1ca9b7f38b727aaf4710fc79 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c3aa4d20355048fbe56131231f066235b2a540b1ca9b7f38b727aaf4710fc79 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1082825 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Any news here?
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #6) > Issues > ====== > > * Version 1.3.1 seems to be available: > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/; can you update > the package, and I'll re-review? Done. > * > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kalev/ > MozillaExtensionsDraft#Sample_Spec_File seems to sugggest that XPIs should > be unpacked? I'm assuming that's no longer the case because of extension > signing? That's correct. > * This is very minor, but rpmlint is unhappy that your bundled font provides > are not versioned. The versioning information can be acquired by unzipping > the XPI and running ttname -a over the font files. It'd probably be nice to > include that information, though I wouldn't consider it a blocker for review. Done. Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm * Fri Aug 19 2016 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm> - 1.3.1-1 - update to 1.3.1 - added versions to bundled font Provides
Awesome, thanks. Everything looks good-- package is APPROVED. 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. [-]: 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1082825-mozilla- lightbeam/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}, /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a} [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-1.fc26.src.rpm mozilla-lightbeam.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mozilla-lightbeam.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- mozilla-lightbeam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mozilla-filesystem Provides -------- mozilla-lightbeam: bundled(OpenSans-Bold.ttf) bundled(OpenSans-Light.ttf) bundled(OpenSans-LightItalic.ttf) bundled(fontawesome-fonts-web) bundled(js-d3) bundled(js-parseuri) bundled(js-picomodal) mozilla-lightbeam Source checksums ---------------- https://addons.cdn.mozilla.net/user-media/addons/363974/lightbeam_for_firefox-1.3.1-fx.xpi : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c25f3e491a8c7914de08d4c3df446ac8e4a4942d7b9b1f8afd4838ffb33159dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c25f3e491a8c7914de08d4c3df446ac8e4a4942d7b9b1f8afd4838ffb33159dd Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1082825 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mozilla-lightbeam
lazygal-0.8.8-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f3422e6d4c
lazygal-0.8.8-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d507f45a1f
Sorry for the noise. I put in the wrong bug number in my update.
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-974e78f169
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b794502237
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e7022ca71b
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-974e78f169
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e7022ca71b
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b794502237
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.