Bug 1196827 - Review Request: postbooks - PostgreSQL-based accounting and ERP suite, Qt-based desktop version
Summary: Review Request: postbooks - PostgreSQL-based accounting and ERP suite, Qt-bas...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1196780 1196782
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-02-26 20:44 UTC by Daniel Pocock
Modified: 2015-06-27 18:16 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: postbooks-4.8.2-1.fc22
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-06-27 18:16:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zbyszek: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Daniel Pocock 2015-02-26 20:44:01 UTC
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dpocock/qt-client/fedora/postbooks.spec
SRPM URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/postbooks-4.8.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: Full accounting and ERP suite.  This is the desktop client, one or more users can run it to connect to the PostgreSQL server.  Apart from PostgreSQL, no other server components are required to support users with the desktop GUI.  It is developed in C++ and has a Qt GUI.  xTuple also provides a web and mobile interface, that can work off the same PostgreSQL schema but it is not included in this package.
Fedora Account System Username: pocock

Comment 1 Daniel Pocock 2015-02-26 20:49:13 UTC
I've created a pull request for the upstream developers to accept the spec file in their repository:

https://github.com/xtuple/qt-client/pull/613

Comment 2 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2015-05-06 06:06:50 UTC
It'd be nice to have Requires on separate lines, especially for the ones with %{?...} variables. This applied to all three reviews.

Why is ldconfig in the %post for main package?

%clean can be removed.

rm at the begininng of %install looks strange.

All three specs look great...

Comment 3 Gil Moskowitz 2015-05-08 20:05:20 UTC
https://github.com/xtuple/qt-client/pull/684 addressing review comments has been merged

Comment 5 Daniel Pocock 2015-05-09 17:58:21 UTC
Thanks all, the specs and new src RPM URLs have been added

Comment 6 Daniel Pocock 2015-05-19 17:09:08 UTC
Latest SRPM:

Spec URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/fedora/postbooks.spec
SRPM URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/postbooks-4.8.2-1.fc21.src.rpm

Note: upstream hasn't actually tagged 4.8.2 yet, but the desktop file is in his repository so the SRPM has been built from a snapshot of the 4_8_x branch.  Upstream will probably tag 4.8.2 if there are no other changes requested for Fedora to approve the package.

Comment 7 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2015-05-20 01:50:42 UTC
Issues:

This package should have an appdata file [1]. It's not mandatory, just strongly encouraged, but I think it would be really nice for postbooks to show up prominently in gnome software.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData

postbooks-libs hath no license.

The same as in other packages:
- xpm is deprecated and the icon is awfully small.
- /usr/share/applications/postbooks.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated

Apart from that, things seem mostly kosher.

rpmlint:
postbooks.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xTuple -> sextuplet
postbooks.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple Accounting/ERP suite desktop client
postbooks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xTuple -> sextuplet
postbooks.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
postbooks.src:78: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
postbooks.src:78: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
postbooks.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/xtuple/qt-client/archive/v4.8.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

postbooks.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xTuple -> sextuplet
postbooks.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple Accounting/ERP suite desktop client
postbooks.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xTuple -> sextuplet
postbooks.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.8.1-1 ['4.8.2-1.fc22', '4.8.2-1']
postbooks.x86_64: W: no-documentation
postbooks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xtuple
postbooks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary postbooks
postbooks-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xTuple -> sextuplet
postbooks-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpostbooks -> pocketbooks
postbooks-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxtuplecommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libQtXmlPatterns.so.4
postbooks-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxtuplecommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
postbooks-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxtuplecommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
postbooks-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation

All ignorable.

Comment 8 Daniel Pocock 2015-05-20 17:04:10 UTC

The SRPM has been updated again:

Spec URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/fedora/postbooks.spec
SRPM URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/postbooks-4.8.2-1.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 9 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2015-05-20 18:46:14 UTC
Still there:
> postbooks-libs hath no license.
Please fix that.

Apart from the above, no issues. Package is APPROVED.

Comment 10 Daniel Pocock 2015-05-20 21:23:27 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: postbooks
Short Description: Postbooks multi-user accounting, CRM and ERP suite
Upstream URL: https://github.com/xtuple/qt-client
Owners: pocock
Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7

Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-05-21 12:30:26 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 12 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2015-06-27 17:01:31 UTC
So, what's the status here? Would be great to do the last step and put the package in the hands of users :)

Comment 13 Daniel Pocock 2015-06-27 17:06:49 UTC

Updates were pushed for fc20, fc21 and fc22:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/postbooks

Is any further action needed for these versions or for it to appear in Fedora 23?

Comment 14 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2015-06-27 18:16:44 UTC
Ah, OK. The review bug number is normally added to the newpackage update, so the review bug is automatically closed when it goes stable. So no, everything is OK, I just didn't know about the updates.


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