Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/bhubbard/vimwiki.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/badone/vimwiki/fedora-23-x86_64/00226318-vimwiki/vimwiki-2.3-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: First package, looking for a sponsor. Vimwiki is a personal wiki for Vim -a number of linked text files that have their own syntax highlighting. With Vimwiki you can: -organize notes and ideas -manage to do-lists -write documentation -maintain a diary Features: -three markup syntaxes supported: Vimwiki's own syntax, Markdown, MediaWiki -export everything to HTML -link to other wiki pages and external files -search through all wiki pages -outline notes and tasks in indented lists -quickly manipulate numbered and bulleted lists -tag wiki pages or arbitrary places and quickly jump to tags -tables Fedora Account System Username: badone Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14095996
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jridky/fedrr/1336255-vimwiki/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. most plugins are named vim-* (should rename to vim-wiki) [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]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vimwiki-2.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm vimwiki-2.3-1.fc25.src.rpm vimwiki.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syntaxes -> syntax's, syn taxes, syn-taxes vimwiki.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bulleted -> billeted, bullet ed, bullet-ed vimwiki.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syntaxes -> syntax's, syn taxes, syn-taxes vimwiki.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bulleted -> billeted, bullet ed, bullet-ed 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- vimwiki.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syntaxes -> syntax's, syn taxes, syn-taxes vimwiki.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bulleted -> billeted, bullet ed, bullet-ed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- vimwiki (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/vim vim-common Provides -------- vimwiki: vimwiki Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki/archive/v2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6d16a564e9e489cf89aad2d5d3383f14dbd48ab8ecc38ee530ffc13f59f2a2f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6d16a564e9e489cf89aad2d5d3383f14dbd48ab8ecc38ee530ffc13f59f2a2f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1336255 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Comment: ----------- rename package ! Group tag is not used/needed anymore README is translated to chinese - what about summary and description? Recommendation: remove features from description (it makes description too long and features usually changes by every release)
Thanks for the review Josef. I'll update once I've gotten these issues sorted out.
Sorry this took so long Josef. Renamed package. Removed Group tag. Removed features from description. Have no experience with translation to Chinese so would probably not get it right. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/bhubbard/vim-wiki.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/bhubbard/vim-wiki-2.3-1.fc24.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15992273
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [!]: %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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vim-wiki-2.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm vim-wiki-2.3-1.fc24.src.rpm vim-wiki.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Vimwiki -> Vim wiki, Vim-wiki, Viking vim-wiki.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Vimwiki -> Vim wiki, Vim-wiki, Viking 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory vim-wiki.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Vimwiki -> Vim wiki, Vim-wiki, Viking 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- vim-wiki (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/vim vim-common Provides -------- vim-wiki: vim-wiki Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki/archive/v2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6d16a564e9e489cf89aad2d5d3383f14dbd48ab8ecc38ee530ffc13f59f2a2f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6d16a564e9e489cf89aad2d5d3383f14dbd48ab8ecc38ee530ffc13f59f2a2f Comment ------- 1) %check part is missing, but it is not mandatory part of spec file, so, if you don't have any tests, you can take this issue as pointless 2) %description should provide short description of package. The feature list should be part of documentation.
1) I have no tests so I think %check is unneeded. 2) Are you saying %description is still too long since I removed the "Features:" section? Thanks.
No, it is not about length of %description, but about structure of this section. Description should be breathe paragraph or a few sentences, but no "checklist". If you change this list into paragraph or sentence, it will be better than using list. (e.g. With Vimwiki you will be able to organize your notes and ideas, manage your TODO lists, write documentation, maintain your diary and many more.) But finally its up to you. This is just my recommendation.
(In reply to Josef Ridky from comment #6) > No, it is not about length of %description, but about structure of this > section. Description should be breathe paragraph or a few sentences, but no > "checklist". > > If you change this list into paragraph or sentence, it will be better than > using list. > > (e.g. With Vimwiki you will be able to organize your notes and ideas, manage > your TODO lists, write documentation, maintain your diary and many more.) > > But finally its up to you. This is just my recommendation. No, that sounds fine, changes made. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/bhubbard/vim-wiki.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/bhubbard/vim-wiki-2.3-1.fc24.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16056792
It looks good. fedora-rewiew: +
Hi Brad, I see that you define %{appdata_dir} but you actually don't provide any appdata. Would you mind to provide some? Its not hard and it is nice to have them, since your package can be easily installed via Gnome Software then. You can check AppData section guidelines of guildelines [1] and my vim-commentary package [2] for inspiration. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#.metainfo.xml_file_creation [2] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/vim-commentary.git/tree/
Any update?
I'm no longer using this package and failed to get sponsorship so this can probably be just be closed.
Closing as EOL.