Bug 1622978 - Review Request: elementary-code - Code editor from elementary
Summary: Review Request: elementary-code - Code editor from elementary
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: PantheonDesktopPackageReviews
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-08-28 10:02 UTC by Fabio Valentini
Modified: 2018-08-28 17:43 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-08-28 17:43:03 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabio Valentini 2018-08-28 10:02:49 UTC
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/elementary-code.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/elementary-code-2.4.1-13.20180825.gitdf6691c.fc28.src.rpm

Description: Code editor from elementary

Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe

koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29345652


Note: This review request will result in a renamed package (scratch-text-editor -> elementary-code). Please verify that the Obsoletes and Provides are correct for this case.

Note2: There has been no stable release since upstream renamed the project - however, since a new version should be released soon, I'd like to get the renaming and obsoleting done in time to be able to retire the old package on fedora 29, too.

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-08-28 12:05:45 UTC
Package approved.



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v3)",
     "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 381 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
     /elementary-code/review-elementary-code/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[x]: 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 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 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:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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
     elementary-code-debuginfo , elementary-code-debugsource
[?]: 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]: 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 1126400 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: elementary-code-2.4.1-13.20180825.gitdf6691c.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          elementary-code-devel-2.4.1-13.20180825.gitdf6691c.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          elementary-code-debuginfo-2.4.1-13.20180825.gitdf6691c.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          elementary-code-debugsource-2.4.1-13.20180825.gitdf6691c.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          elementary-code-2.4.1-13.20180825.gitdf6691c.fc30.src.rpm
elementary-code.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary io.elementary.code
elementary-code.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/bh/LC_MESSAGES/io.elementary.code.mo
elementary-code.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/io.elementary.code.mo
elementary-code-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-08-28 16:05:17 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-code


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.