Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lxqt-wallet.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lxqt-admin-0.10.0-2.20160705git8acfd2a.fc24.src.rpm Description: Create a kwallet like functionality for LXQt This project seeks to give a functionality for secure storage of information that can be presented in key-values pair like user names-passwords pairs. Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14896091 Note: Current directory structure of translation files is not useful for %find_lang. I'm working on a patch.
> kwallet support NOT found,will not build kwallet functionality Added KF5Notifications to BuildRequires. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14899638
Please use a valid src rpm (lxqt-admin-0.10.0-2.20160705git8acfd2a.fc24.src.rpm)
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lxqt-wallet.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lxqt-wallet-2.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Please, remove: BuildRequires: gcc-c++ and change BuildRequires: libsecret-devel with BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libsecret-1)
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 ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1356657-lxqt- wallet/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lxqt- wallet-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: lxqt-wallet-2.2.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm lxqt-wallet-devel-2.2.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm lxqt-wallet-debuginfo-2.2.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm lxqt-wallet-2.2.1-1.fc25.src.rpm lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kwallet -> wallet, k wallet, walleye lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kwallet -> wallet, k wallet, walleye lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgcrypt -> cryptically lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end lxqt-wallet.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lxqt_wallet-cli lxqt-wallet.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kwallet -> wallet, k wallet, walleye lxqt-wallet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kwallet -> wallet, k wallet, walleye lxqt-wallet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgcrypt -> cryptically lxqt-wallet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic lxqt-wallet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end lxqt-wallet.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{srcname} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lxqt-wallet-debuginfo-2.2.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kwallet -> wallet, k wallet, walleye lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kwallet -> wallet, k wallet, walleye lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgcrypt -> cryptically lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic lxqt-wallet.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end lxqt-wallet.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/liblxqtwallet.so.2.0.0 /lib/libKF5Notifications.so.5 lxqt-wallet.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/liblxqtwallet.so.2.0.0 /lib/libgio-2.0.so.0 lxqt-wallet.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/liblxqtwallet.so.2.0.0 /lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 lxqt-wallet.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/liblxqtwallet.so.2.0.0 /lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 lxqt-wallet.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/liblxqtwallet.so.2.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6 lxqt-wallet.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lxqt_wallet-cli 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- lxqt-wallet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libKF5Notifications.so.5 libKF5Wallet.so.5 libQt5Core.so.5 libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6) libQt5Gui.so.5 libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5) libQt5Widgets.so.5 libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5) libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcrypt.so.20 libgcrypt.so.20(GCRYPT_1.6) libgio-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libsecret-1.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) rtld(GNU_HASH) lxqt-wallet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lxqt-wallet-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config liblxqt-devel(x86-32) liblxqtwallet.so.2.0.0 lxqt-wallet(x86-32) Provides -------- lxqt-wallet: liblxqtwallet.so.2.0.0 lxqt-wallet lxqt-wallet(x86-32) lxqt-wallet-debuginfo: lxqt-wallet-debuginfo lxqt-wallet-debuginfo(x86-32) lxqt-wallet-devel: lxqt-wallet-devel lxqt-wallet-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(lxqtwallet) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mhogomchungu/lxqt_wallet/archive/2.2.1/lxqt-wallet-2.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 533af761d5142f7acade6ca6099a232bc8a99e186860c49b445f77b541544d21 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 533af761d5142f7acade6ca6099a232bc8a99e186860c49b445f77b541544d21 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1356657 --plugins C/C++ -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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
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 see also Comment#4
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > Please, remove: > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ Some people like to see gcc etc. explicitly listed, anyways fixed. > and change > > BuildRequires: libsecret-devel > > with > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libsecret-1) Fixed.
Approved
Thanks again for the good work!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lxqt-wallet
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > > Please, remove: > > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > > Some people like to see gcc etc. explicitly listed, anyways fixed. Please, revert this change i was not aware of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #10) > Package request has been approved: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lxqt-wallet Will import when zuluCrypt finally unbundled. (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #11) > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > > > Please, remove: > > > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > > > > Some people like to see gcc etc. explicitly listed, anyways fixed. > Please, revert this change i was not aware of > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires Will do. That shouldn't be a big issue because gcc is still installed by default.
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0f2d6af926
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.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-2016-0f2d6af926
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.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-f08257b92c
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24 zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0f2d6af926
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7 zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24, zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.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-2016-0f2d6af926
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.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-f08257b92c
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.fc24, zulucrypt-5.0.0-2.20160802git064e9db.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-3.20160802git064e9db.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-f08257b92c
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-3.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.