Spec URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/4Pane/4Pane.spec SRPM URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/4Pane/4Pane-3.0-1.fc.src.rpm Description: 4Pane is a multi-pane, detailed-list file manager. It is designed to be fully-featured without bloat, and aims for speed rather than visual effects. In addition to standard file manager things, it offers multiple undo and redo of most operations (including deletions), archive management including 'virtual browsing' inside archives, multiple renaming/duplication of files, a terminal emulator and user-defined tools. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka Scratch build: F-22 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8325484 F-21 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8325516 F-20 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8325534
https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/4Pane/4Pane.spec https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/4Pane/4Pane-3.0-2.fc.src.rpm * Wed Dec 10 2014 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> - 3.0-2 - Patch to fix crash with managing bookmark on non-English locale (sourceforge 767206)
Looks fine to me. I had a question about the License field. If you could look into that, I'll approve the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - LICENCE file indicates that some code was copied from wxWidgets, so I think the License field should be "GPLv3 and wxWidgets"? Can you confirm? - Not a blocker, but should the "sed -i -e '\@Icon=@s|^.*$|Icon=%{name}|'" change to rc/4Pane.desktop be submitted to upstream? ===== 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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. [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 256000 bytes in 62 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. [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. [-]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2,508,800 bytes in /usr/share [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: 4Pane-3.0-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm 4Pane-3.0-2.fc22.src.rpm 4Pane.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti 4Pane.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 4Pane.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 4pane 4Pane.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 4Pane 4Pane.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti 4Pane.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint 4Pane 4Pane.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti 4Pane.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 4Pane.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 4pane 4Pane.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 4Pane 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- 4Pane (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_adv-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_adv-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_xrc-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_xrc-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- 4Pane: 4Pane 4Pane(x86-64) application() application(4Pane.desktop) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/fourpane/4pane-3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eedf6d80e04b60f098300260425f4fd1b0429168577788085d7bf9d054ece9fd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eedf6d80e04b60f098300260425f4fd1b0429168577788085d7bf9d054ece9fd Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1171991 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
Thank you for initial comments! (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #2) > Looks fine to me. I had a question about the License field. If you could > look into that, I'll approve the package. Okay, then about licensing: The license is "effectively" GPLv3, because if there is GPL license, all other licenses must be compatible with GPL (i.e. GPL must be most strict if there is GPL) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F For icon sed, I can ping upstream later.
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #3) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_. > 22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F Ok, that works for me. APPROVED
Thank you! I will surely review your package later. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: 4Pane Short Description: Multi-pane, detailed-list file manager Upstream URL: http://www.4pane.co.uk/ Owners: mtasaka Branches: f21 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Built on all branches, push requested on bodhi, now closing. Thank you for review and git procedure.