Bug 1151462 - Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
Summary: Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-10-10 13:28 UTC by Carlos Morel-Riquelme
Modified: 2015-07-22 08:21 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-22 08:21:38 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-10 13:28:48 UTC
Spec URL: https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec
SRPM URL: https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm

Description: belen is a GUI of youtube-dl command for linux, this is made in Ruby/GTK+3. with this you can download multimedia content (audio,video,playlist) from many sites (ex youtube,vimeo,dailymotion).
Now this is my first package to fedora community for the same reason i need a FE-NEEDSPONSOR.

Fedora Account System Username: n0oir

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2014-10-14 07:35:07 UTC
Hi Carlos,
   We have this process http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to get sponsored in packager group. Can you either submit few more packages and/or some (3-5) package reviews? This is needed to make sure package submitter understands packaging well and follows as per fedora packaging guidelines.

Please go through links
1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines

3) To find package already submitted for review check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/

4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help review packages in fedora.

If you got any questions please ask :)

Comment 2 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-14 08:20:29 UTC
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> Hi Carlos,
>    We have this process
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
> to get sponsored in packager group. Can you either submit few more packages
> and/or some (3-5) package reviews? This is needed to make sure package
> submitter understands packaging well and follows as per fedora packaging
> guidelines.
> 
> Please go through links
> 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
> 
> 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines
> 
> 3) To find package already submitted for review check
> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
> 
> 4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
> 
> 5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help
> review packages in fedora.
> 
> If you got any questions please ask :)

Thank for all help i follow all step correctly, now i check the item #5

Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2014-10-14 08:26:44 UTC
You can pick any package from http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html and provide your review for that package on that package review bug. When you done with such reviews, keep posting here those bugs links. This is needed so that sponsor will check if you are able to review those packages well, find any issues in them and provided solutions to correct them.

You may also want to use http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks page to know what can be solution to some common issues you find in package reviews.

Comment 4 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-14 09:40:09 UTC
Fedora copr results
http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/n0oir/belen/

Fedora Koji result
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7859033

Comment 5 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-14 13:13:21 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
  contains icons.
  Note: icons in belen
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: 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 %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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 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 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]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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: belen-0.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          belen-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm
belen.noarch: W: no-documentation
belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
belen.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/belen.desktop ruby
belen.src: W: strange-permission belen.rb 0666L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint belen
belen.noarch: W: no-documentation
belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
belen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python
    ruby
    rubygem-gtk3
    youtube-dl



Provides
--------
belen:
    application()
    application(belen.desktop)
    belen



Source checksums
----------------
https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.rb :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae
https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.svg :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-21-x86_64 -b 1151462
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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


note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? shebang is a icon file ?

Comment 6 Parag AN(पराग) 2014-10-14 14:31:48 UTC
good to see that you used fedora-review first on your own package before reviewing other people's packages.

As you can see you need some fixes in your package to follow packaging guidelines. But before that I see you are also upstream for what you have packaged. So, I got some suggestions. If upstream is good in generating good releases then it becomes easy for us to package it in fedora. 

1) I see you already host your source on github. Its good to create tarball of your source files which will contain files
belen.rb
belen.svg
README -> this will provide information about what this source is and how can one use it.
LICENSE -> Always good to add a single license text for all your source files.
belen.desktop -> desktop file
Makefile -> This will install the above files on the system.

This will make your spec more simple instead to add every source files and then desktop file contents in spec.

2) your desktop file should look like
[Desktop Entry]
Name=Belen
Comment=Belen is a GUI of command youtube-dl for Linux
Icon=/usr/share/pixmaps/belen.svg
Type=Application
Categories=Video;AudioVideo;
Exec=/usr/bin/belen
StartupNotify=true
Terminal=false

See http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html for valid categories.

3) when you want to install desktop file, follow guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

4) As given by fedora-review
 Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but in this package spec both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT are used. See more http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

5) you should not install icon file in /usr/share/icons directory but in /usr/share/pixmaps

6)As per ruby packaging guidelines you should
Requires: ruby(release)

and remove Requires: for ruby and python both are not needed

7) It is now optional and should not be added following lines for fedora packaging
Group:Applications/Multimedia
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%defattr(755, root, root)

you can read about this in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


You can submit new spec and srpm fixing above issues for further review of this package. Note you should bump release tag and add changelog for what you changed in spec file since its last release.

Comment 7 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-14 16:56:22 UTC
Thank for all help friend :)

well i follow your tips, now i have new spec and srpm

new SPEC https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec
new SRPM https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-3.fc21.src.rpm

================================================================================

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: 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 %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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: belen-0.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
          belen-0.1-3.fc21.src.rpm
belen.noarch: W: no-documentation
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
belen.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/belen.desktop ruby
belen.src: W: strange-permission belen.rb 0666L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint belen
belen.noarch: W: no-documentation
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
belen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(release)
    rubygem-gtk3
    youtube-dl



Provides
--------
belen:
    application()
    application(belen.desktop)
    belen



Source checksums
----------------
https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.rb :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae
https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.svg :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-21-x86_64 -n belen
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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

Comment 8 Samuel Sieb 2014-10-14 17:02:11 UTC
> note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? shebang is a icon file ?

"shebang" is the "#!" line at the start of most script files.  For some reason, it thinks your svg is a script file.  Is it flagged as executable perhaps?

Comment 9 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-14 17:40:29 UTC
(In reply to Samuel Sieb from comment #8)
> > note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? shebang is a icon file ?
> 
> "shebang" is the "#!" line at the start of most script files.  For some
> reason, it thinks your svg is a script file.  Is it flagged as executable
> perhaps?

yes, it's strange but i fix this change the path of icon and using foo.png file :)

Comment 10 Parag AN(पराग) 2014-10-15 12:19:48 UTC
I see you still missed some of my points like using desktop-file-install and what Exec I wrote for desktop file. I will post few more issues in spec soon but meanwhile do some package reviews submitted by other people.

Comment 11 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-16 08:48:12 UTC
Hi Parag, i hope that you are fine , i have new files

new SPEC https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec
new SRPM https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-4.fc21.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/n0oir/review/review-belen/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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 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 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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: belen-0.1-4.fc21.noarch.rpm
          belen-0.1-4.fc21.src.rpm
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
belen.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/belen.desktop ruby
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint belen
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
belen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(release)
    rubygem-gtk3
    youtube-dl



Provides
--------
belen:
    application()
    application(belen.desktop)
    belen



Source checksums
----------------
https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : eed59a694926e94d6c5c37008bcf8fe49991275fdb5d5684b3627b9c741761c8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eed59a694926e94d6c5c37008bcf8fe49991275fdb5d5684b3627b9c741761c8


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-21-x86_64 -n belen
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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

Comment 12 Eduardo Echeverria 2014-10-17 05:07:31 UTC
Hi Carlos:

- using desktop-file-* you need have as buildrequires desktop-file-utils, remember if the file does not needs any modification the correct choice is desktop-file-validate, otherwise desktop-file-install

- if you will validate your own spec running fedora-review,  be sure to fill *all* the items. It is not necessary paste into the review, if is for your own package should be of personal use for evaluate your spec, if you are reviewing to other people, use is justified. (review to other people it is good idea to demonstrate to your sponsor that  you have the enough knowledge to be packager)

see this link to have an idea for review to other people http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

Comment 13 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-17 05:57:21 UTC
Hello to all, i build new package

new spec https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec
new src.rpm https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-4.fc21.src.rpm

regards

Comment 14 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-21 14:11:32 UTC
0.1-5 version

new spec => https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec
new srpm => https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-5.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 15 Parag AN(पराग) 2014-10-28 13:30:00 UTC
Its been more than 10 days now since my last comment. Hope you could have found time to review other people packages. Can you paste the links for those package reviews here?

About your recent updated srpm. I have some suggestions

1) about look of spec file. It will be good to write every BuildRequires and Requires per line. E.g.
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils, ruby-devel

should be

BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
BuildRequires: ruby-devel

Same for Requires: line

2) It will be good for people reading your spec to read it clearly. So following
Name:belen
Version:0.1
Release:5%{?dist}
Summary:GUI down-loader for Linux
License:GPLv3
URL:https://github.com/n0oir/belen
Source0:https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch:noarch

can be written as
Name:       belen
Version:    0.1
Release:    5%{?dist}
Summary:    GUI down-loader for Linux
License:    GPLv3
URL:        https://github.com/n0oir/belen
Source0:    https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch:  noarch


3) desktop-file-install line should be written as

desktop-file-install                         \
    --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
    %{name}.desktop

4) At one place buildroot macro is written differently
%buildroot should be %{buildroot}


5) Summary should be "Frontend of youtube-dl made in Ruby Gtk+3"

6) %description should be
Belen is a GUI of command youtube-dl made in Ruby and GTK+3 with this you can 
download multimedia content and full playlist from

    * youtube
    * dailymotion
    * vimeo
    * etc...

for the complete list visit http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/supportedsites.html

Comment 16 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-28 15:18:56 UTC
Thank Parag, don't worry by the time :) , now i follow all your suggestions and i fix  the spec file 

0.1-6 version

spec : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec
srpm : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-6.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 17 Parag AN(पराग) 2014-10-30 07:54:42 UTC
Looks good now except a rpmlint on srpm gives warning message
belen.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 1)

==> The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

When you fix this, no need to increase the release number you can just use -6 again as its minor change.

Comment 18 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-30 19:10:36 UTC
Thank parag, i fixed the warning of indentation c: here are the files

spec : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/Belen/belen.spec
srpm : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/Belen/belen-0.1-6.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 19 Samuel Sieb 2014-10-30 23:08:51 UTC
This might be a little early, but I built a package on F20 using the src.rpm and on two computers I tried it on, no interface came up.  The process gets stuck.

Comment 20 Carlos Morel-Riquelme 2014-10-31 02:05:52 UTC
(In reply to Samuel Sieb from comment #19)
> This might be a little early, but I built a package on F20 using the src.rpm
> and on two computers I tried it on, no interface came up.  The process gets
> stuck.

well, this package is only for F21 or rawhide, because i'm using method of GtkSwitch that only are available since gnome 3.14 , if i change the GtkSwitch by GtkCheckBox , the app work fine in F19,F20,F21.

Comment 21 Parag AN(पराग) 2015-05-27 12:25:11 UTC
I see this user have many FAS accounts (at least .fas command to bugzilla account name showed many fas names) and not done work to get packager sponsorship.

Removing myself.

Comment 22 Parag AN(पराग) 2015-07-22 08:21:38 UTC
Let's close this now.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.