Description: This was a GSoC'10 project to implement a new command line tools for bluez (bluetooth stack for linux). It is currently an active open source project. The project is implemented in C and uses the D-Bus interface of bluez. The project is still a work in progress, and not all APIs from Bluez have been implemented as a part of bluez-tools. The APIs which have been implemented in bluez-tools are adapter, agent, device, network and obex. Other APIs, such as interfaces for medical devices, pedometers and other specific APIs have not been ported to bluez-tools. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17951715 Issues: No known issues. Some minor complains from rpmlint. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/bluez-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.1.fc26.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance!
Approved please remove NEWS when you import bluez-tools.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/bluez-tools/NEWS Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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: "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/leigh/Desktop/1424772-bluez- tools/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [?]: 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 10240 bytes in 3 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bluez- tools-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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.1.fc26.x86_64.rpm bluez-tools-debuginfo-0.2.0-0.1.fc26.x86_64.rpm bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.1.fc26.src.rpm bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue tooth, blue-tooth bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linux -> Linux bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue tooth, blue-tooth bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US obex -> ibex, obey, ob ex bluez-tools.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/bluez-tools/NEWS bluez-tools.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue tooth, blue-tooth bluez-tools.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linux -> Linux bluez-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue tooth, blue-tooth bluez-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux bluez-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US obex -> ibex, obey, ob ex 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bluez-tools-debuginfo-0.2.0-0.1.fc26.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 bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue tooth, blue-tooth bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linux -> Linux bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue tooth, blue-tooth bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux bluez-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US obex -> ibex, obey, ob ex bluez-tools.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/bluez-tools/NEWS 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- bluez-tools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bluez-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bluez(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- bluez-tools-debuginfo: bluez-tools-debuginfo bluez-tools-debuginfo(x86-64) bluez-tools: bluez-tools bluez-tools(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/khvzak/bluez-tools/archive/97efd293491ad7ec96a655665339908f2478b3d1.tar.gz#/bluez-tools-0.2.0-git20161212.97efd29.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 62ca98af63d2ae142dbc77995c6bd4c259eaba4a5832daa33ae9e3d585b9205f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 62ca98af63d2ae142dbc77995c6bd4c259eaba4a5832daa33ae9e3d585b9205f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1424772 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
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #1) > Approved please remove NEWS when you import > > bluez-tools.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/bluez-tools/NEWS Will do so! Thank you very much for the quick review! =)
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/bluez-tools
bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.2.fc25 blueberry-1.1.10-3.fc25 cinnamon-3.2.8-14.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7b0d9bce92
bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.2.fc24 blueberry-1.1.10-3.fc24 cinnamon-3.2.8-14.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ba34aa36e1
blueberry-1.1.10-3.fc24, bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.2.fc24, cinnamon-3.2.8-14.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-2017-ba34aa36e1
blueberry-1.1.10-3.fc25, bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.2.fc25, cinnamon-3.2.8-14.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-7b0d9bce92
blueberry-1.1.10-3.fc24, bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.2.fc24, cinnamon-3.2.8-14.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
blueberry-1.1.10-3.fc25, bluez-tools-0.2.0-0.2.fc25, cinnamon-3.2.8-14.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.