Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/sqlitebrowser.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Create, design, and edit SQLite database files Fedora Account System Username: smani
*** Bug 1119644 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'll do this review. Could you do https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170069 for me? Thanks.
This package is APPROVED. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8467319 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in sqlitebrowser [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in sqlitebrowser [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 71680 bytes in 2 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]: 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. [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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. [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: sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm sqlitebrowser.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlitebrowser 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- sqlitebrowser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libqcustomplot.so.0()(64bit) libqhexedit.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- sqlitebrowser: application() application(sqlitebrowser.desktop) mimehandler(application/sqlitebrowser) mimehandler(application/x-sqlite2) mimehandler(application/x-sqlite3) mimehandler(application/x-sqlitebrowser) sqlitebrowser sqlitebrowser(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sqlitebrowser/sqlitebrowser/archive/v3.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 05958cb1b9b893f45df1199974923a6f57ff33c8c1fdd8d8e74132ab9caf1cba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05958cb1b9b893f45df1199974923a6f57ff33c8c1fdd8d8e74132ab9caf1cba
Thank you! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sqlitebrowser Short Description: Create, design, and edit SQLite database files Owners: smani Branches: f20 f21
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Hi, Is it possible to accept me as a comaintainer? As I don't have too much time now on Fedora due to the approaching end of the term. Thanks.
Sure, done.
sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc21
sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc20
sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-2.fc21
sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-2.fc20
sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
sqlitebrowser-3.4.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.