Bug 1160475 - Review Request: tikzit - Diagram editor for pgf/TikZ
Summary: Review Request: tikzit - Diagram editor for pgf/TikZ
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
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: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-04 22:15 UTC by Eric Smith
Modified: 2015-12-02 19:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-12-02 19:10:14 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Eric Smith 2014-11-04 22:15:47 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/tikzit/tikzit.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/tikzit/tikzit-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: 
TikZiT is a graphical tool for rapidly creating an editing node-and-edge
style graphs. It was originally created to aid in the typesetting of
"dot" diagrams of interacting quantum observables, but can be used as a
general graph editing program.
Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha

Comment 1 Mattia Verga 2015-07-05 09:12:16 UTC
I'm starting a formal review of this package.

Comment 2 Mattia Verga 2015-07-05 14:28:16 UTC
APPROVED

Please fix the %{_datadir}/%{name}/shapes to %{_datadir}/%{name} before importing in CVS and ask upstream to fix license stuff.


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

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


===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or
     later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 6 files have unknown license.
>>> License GPLv3 is correct, however the COPYING file provided is GPLv2, looks like a mistake,
    ask upstream to fix this in their source control

[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/tikzit
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/tikzit
>>> You can change %{_datadir}/%{name}/shapes to %{_datadir}/%{name}

[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]: 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.
[-]: 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 tikzit
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
>>> Ask upstream to include license file

[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.
[-]: %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]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: tikzit-1.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          tikzit-1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f
tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably
tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit
tikzit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f
tikzit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: tikzit-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f
tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably
tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Requires
--------
tikzit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
    libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgnustep-base.so.1.24()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libobjc.so.4()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
tikzit:
    application()
    application(tikzit.desktop)
    tikzit
    tikzit(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sf.net/tikzit/tikzit-1.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1160475
Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 3 Mattia Verga 2015-10-10 15:07:31 UTC
Eric, the package was approved, you can proceed with the SCM request if you want.

Comment 4 Mattia Verga 2015-12-02 19:10:14 UTC
No response from the submitter.

Closing.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_responding


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