Description: Xed is a small, but powerful text editor. It has most standard text editor functions and fully supports international text in Unicode. Advanced features include syntax highlighting and automatic indentation of source code, printing and editing of multiple documents in one window. Xed is extensible through a plugin system, which currently includes support for spell checking, comparing files, viewing CVS ChangeLogs, and adjusting indentation levels. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17955068 Issues: No known issues. Some minor complains from rpmlint. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/xed.spec SRPM URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/xed-1.2.2-0.1.fc26.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance!
Moved files to pagure-repo: Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/xed.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/xed-1.2.2-0.1.fc26.src.rpm
*** Bug 1358699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated package: Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/xed.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/xed-1.2.2-0.2.fc26.src.rpm
You can remove these as gnome-common requires them BuildRequires: autoconf BuildRequires: automake BuildRequires: gettext The package requires gschema scriptlets %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/org.x.editor.*gschema.xml You also have a directory ownership issue on %{_datadir}/help change it to %{_datadir}/help/*/%{name}/ Do we really need the debian bits? %license AUTHORS COPYING debian/copyright %doc ChangeLog README debian/changelog
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #4) > You can remove these as gnome-common requires them > > BuildRequires: autoconf > BuildRequires: automake > BuildRequires: gettext > > The package requires gschema scriptlets > > %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/org.x.editor.*gschema.xml > > > You also have a directory ownership issue on > > %{_datadir}/help > > change it to > > > %{_datadir}/help/*/%{name}/ > > > Do we really need the debian bits? > > %license AUTHORS COPYING debian/copyright > %doc ChangeLog README debian/changelog See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424825#c5 *** Updated package: Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/xed.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/xed-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.src.rpm
Approved Please fix the ownership issue on %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc change it to %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name} when you import it Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in xed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema - 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 xed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 264 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/leigh/Desktop/1424798-xed/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/th [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/fi, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/de, /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/hu, /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/zh_HK, /usr/share/help/ja, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/cs, /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/ca, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/help/zh_CN, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/oc, /usr/share/help/it, /usr/share/help/th, /usr/share/help/zh_TW, /usr/share/help/ko, /usr/share/help/bg, /usr/share/help/ru [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gtk-doc(gnome- desktop3-devel, libgnome-keyring-devel, libsecret-devel, gcr-devel, polkit-docs, p11-kit-devel, libpeas-devel, harfbuzz-devel, libcanberra-devel, json-glib-devel, clutter-gst3-devel, libgdata- devel, gnome-bluetooth-libs-devel, gtk-doc), /usr/share/gtk-doc/html (gnome-desktop3-devel, libgnome-keyring-devel, libsecret-devel, gcr- devel, polkit-docs, p11-kit-devel, libpeas-devel, harfbuzz-devel, libcanberra-devel, json-glib-devel, clutter-gst3-devel, libgdata- devel, gnome-bluetooth-libs-devel, gtk-doc) [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 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]: 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]: 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 xed- devel , xed-doc , xed-debuginfo [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. [x]: %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]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10782720 bytes in /usr/share xed-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.x86_64.rpm:10782720 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines It make no sense to me to do this so I am ignoring it! [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xed-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.x86_64.rpm xed-devel-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.x86_64.rpm xed-doc-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.noarch.rpm xed-debuginfo-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.x86_64.rpm xed-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.src.rpm xed-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xed-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-close-confirmation-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-close-confirmation-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-encodings-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-encodings-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-preferences-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-preferences-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/xed-searchbar.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/xed-searchbar.h xed.src:80: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 80, tab: line 1) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xed-debuginfo-1.2.2-0.3.fc26.x86_64.rpm xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-close-confirmation-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-close-confirmation-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-encodings-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-encodings-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-preferences-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-preferences-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/xed-searchbar.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/xed-searchbar.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-close-confirmation-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-close-confirmation-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-encodings-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-encodings-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-preferences-dialog.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/dialogs/xed-preferences-dialog.h xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/xed-searchbar.c xed-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/xed-1.2.2/xed/xed-searchbar.h xed-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xed-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- xed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libenchant.so.1()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xed-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xed-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xed-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config xed(x86-64) Provides -------- xed: appdata() appdata(xed.appdata.xml) application() application(xed.desktop) libchangecase.so()(64bit) libcloader.so()(64bit) libdocinfo.so()(64bit) libfilebrowser.so()(64bit) libmodelines.so()(64bit) libpythonloader.so()(64bit) libsort.so()(64bit) libspell.so()(64bit) libtaglist.so()(64bit) libtime.so()(64bit) libtrailsave.so()(64bit) mimehandler(text/plain) xed xed(x86-64) xed-doc: xed-doc xed-debuginfo: xed-debuginfo xed-debuginfo(x86-64) xed-devel: xed-devel xed-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugin-loaders/libcloader.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugin-loaders/libpythonloader.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libchangecase.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libdocinfo.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libfilebrowser.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libmodelines.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libsort.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libspell.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libtaglist.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libtime.so xed: /usr/lib64/xed/plugins/libtrailsave.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linuxmint/xed/archive/1.2.2.tar.gz#/xed-1.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfd040160ab57540b3828451d8e83356f4e5a345d8113e6427806d1cf69c4eae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfd040160ab57540b3828451d8e83356f4e5a345d8113e6427806d1cf69c4eae Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1424798 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
Release: 0.3%{?dist} What's the reason to use such a construction for the release number? I can't found anything in the guidelines [1] which applies to that. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
Thank you for the review! =)
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #7) > Release: 0.3%{?dist} > > What's the reason to use such a construction for the release number? I can't > found anything in the guidelines [1] which applies to that. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag I usually use 0.XY releases during review and bump to regular release-schema on scm-import.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/xed
xed-1.2.2-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3149a3b8d0
xed-1.2.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-72f325ca2a
xed-1.2.2-1.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-2017-72f325ca2a
xed-1.2.2-1.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-2017-3149a3b8d0
xed-1.2.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
xed-1.2.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.