Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mich181189/phototonic/phototonic.git/tree/phototonic.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mich181189/phototonic/fedora-24-x86_64/00182864-phototonic/phototonic-1.7.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: phototonic is a fast and functional image viewer and organizer, inspired by the traditional image viewer design (i.e. thumbnails and viewer layouts). Fedora Account System Username: mich181189 Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13895869 It is worth noting that upstream have a download link labeled 1.7.1 which goes to a specific, untagged commit. There is a ticket on their issue tracker already for this, asking for a tag. I intend to update this spec file if/when a tag becomes available since it would be much cleaner. This is my first package so I am also seeking a sponsor. I have already commented on a previous review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321902
Gah sorry just seen that spec file is the HTML-ified version. Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mich181189/phototonic/phototonic.git/plain/phototonic.spec should be more correct.
I've also commented on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332999
Updated version now upstream have tagged a release properly: Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mich181189/phototonic/phototonic.git/plain/phototonic.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mich181189/phototonic/fedora-24-x86_64/00183358-phototonic/phototonic-1.7.20-1.fc24.src.rpm scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13925343
hmmm ... spec url is broken. Can you please fix the link? Make sure it's linked to "raw" version (not html) so that I can run fedora-review.
When you add the links, please add both spec and srpm in the same comment. Also, thanks for doing the koji build.
Looks like copr git URLs are broken - probably after today's maintainance. I'll try plan B then. Spec URL: https://cullen-online.com/phototonic.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mich181189/phototonic/fedora-24-x86_64/00183358-phototonic/phototonic-1.7.20-1.fc24.src.rpm
Thank you Michael. I will be out of town tomorrow. Once I am back, I will post a review. Thank you for your patience and quick uploads! :)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ---> This is fine. - 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 phototonic See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ---> Please fix this. You can add update-desktop-database under %post and %postun or %posttrans. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1332344-phototonic/licensecheck.txt ---> The "unknown" fields are arch and debian build scripts. Not an issue here. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in phototonic ---> gtk-update-icon-cache present in the spec file. [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 1 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in phototonic-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: phototonic-1.7.20-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm phototonic-debuginfo-1.7.20-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm phototonic-1.7.20-1.fc25.src.rpm phototonic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phototonic 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: phototonic-debuginfo-1.7.20-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory phototonic.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://oferkv.github.io/phototonic/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> phototonic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phototonic phototonic-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://oferkv.github.io/phototonic/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- phototonic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libexiv2.so.14()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) phototonic-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- phototonic: application() application(phototonic.desktop) mimehandler(image/bmp) mimehandler(image/gif) mimehandler(image/jpeg) mimehandler(image/png) mimehandler(image/svg+xml) phototonic phototonic(x86-64) phototonic-debuginfo: phototonic-debuginfo phototonic-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/oferkv/phototonic/archive/v1.7.20.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f90b597bb45970991ea9e0849e62502d6557862786b735f460dcd03f9eaae86b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f90b597bb45970991ea9e0849e62502d6557862786b735f460dcd03f9eaae86b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1332344 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
rpmlint messages are ok. No issues there. Only two minor issues. Please go through the review in the above comment. Once those are resolved, I will approve the package and sponsor you.
I only see one issue - the desktop database one. The other thing on the issues list actually goes against the guidance in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B did I miss one? Spec URL: https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic.spec SRPM URL: https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc24.src.rpm
(In reply to Michael Cullen from comment #10) > I only see one issue - the desktop database one. The other thing on the > issues list actually goes against the guidance in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B > > did I miss one? That's right. There was only one (apparently, I cannot count! :)). gcc-c++ is not an issue as I have mentioned. From my comment - " - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ---> This is fine. " > > > Spec URL: https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic.spec > SRPM URL: > https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc24.src.rpm I see that everything is fixed. Package APPROVED.
I have now sponsored you into the packagers group. You should be able to use the fedorapeople space now (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org) if you so desire. If you do not mind, you can add me as a co-maintainer for this package. Please feel free me to shoot me an email if you need some help. Welcome to Fedora and to the packagers group!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/phototonic
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9021abfe13
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-acafcbf543
phototonic-1.7.20-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-97acfb51b4
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-07f631907e
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-07f631907e
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-acafcbf543
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9021abfe13
phototonic-1.7.20-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-97acfb51b4
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
phototonic-1.7.20-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.