SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/logisim.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/logisim-2.7.1-1.fc23.src.rpm FAS account: lkundrak Depends on: bug #1286001, bug #1286002 Description: Logisim is an educational tool for designing and simulating digital logic circuits. With its simple toolbar interface and simulation of circuits as you build them, it is simple enough to facilitate learning the most basic concepts related to logic circuits. With the capacity to build larger circuits from smaller subcircuits, and to draw bundles of wires with a single mouse drag, Logisim can be used (and is used) to design and simulate entire CPUs for educational purposes.
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/logisim.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/logisim-2.7.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation Please, fix before import - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation IGNORE - 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 logisim See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database Please, fix before import ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2251 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1286006-logisim/licensecheck.txt Please, fix before import: License: ASL 2.0 and GPLv2+ [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime, /usr/share/mime/packages [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 [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [?]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages. Note: mimeinfo files in: logisim See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo [-]: 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. [?]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== 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: logisim-2.7.1-2.fc24.noarch.rpm logisim-2.7.1-2.fc24.src.rpm logisim.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcircuits -> sub circuits, sub-circuits, circuits logisim.noarch: W: no-documentation logisim.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary logisim logisim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcircuits -> sub circuits, sub-circuits, circuits 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente logisim.noarch: W: no-documentation logisim.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary logisim 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- logisim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh java javahelp2 jfontchooser Provides -------- logisim: application() application(logisim.desktop) logisim mimehandler(application/x-logisim-circuit) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/circuit/2.7.x/2.7.1/logisim-generic-2.7.1.jar : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 362a78c12ad18c203fed868872c4a01cd9c12141379d92e892bbe2c37e627bc2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 362a78c12ad18c203fed868872c4a01cd9c12141379d92e892bbe2c37e627bc2 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1286006 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -L /home/gil/dependencies Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /home/gil/dependencies/jfontchooser-1.0.5-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
Summary NON blocking issues: - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - 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 logisim See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2251 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1286006-logisim/licensecheck.txt Please, fix before import: License: ASL 2.0 and GPLv2+ [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please, fix before import Approved
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/logisim
Thank you! Imported and built.
The CompTIA CS0-002 practice questions present in CS0-002 pdf dumps, Exactinside have mimicked the CS0-002 questions from the CompTIA CS0-002 real exam. This will surely give you an idea about what to expect in the CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst CS0-002 certification exam. If you follow all these CS0-002 actual questions by preparing for them without skipping any topic, you'll have a high chance of getting good marks in the CS0-002 CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst (CySA+) Exam. The CompTIA CS0-002 Dumps Questions available here are taken from the reliable sources to prepare for the CS0-002 test. As a result, the CS0-002 exam students will have an idea about how to tackle and answer these CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst CS0-002 exam questions. The CS0-002 test candidates just have to go through these questions along with their answers in order to clear the CS0-002 CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst (CySA+) Exam. These CompTIA CS0-002 dumps define the difficulty of some topics and when you have prepared in line with the advice of professionals, you can pass the CS0-002 CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst (CySA+) Exam without any hurdles. Visit Page: https://www.exactinside.com/CS0-002-exactdumps.html