Bug 1702739 - Review Request: notes-up - Markdown notes editor & manager
Summary: Review Request: notes-up - Markdown notes editor & manager
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-04-24 15:48 UTC by Artem
Modified: 2019-05-02 03:33 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2019-05-02 03:33:19 UTC
Type: Bug
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Artem 2019-04-24 15:48:54 UTC
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/notes-up.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/notes-up-2.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

The intuitive writing app for everyone, from students to developers.

With powerful features like:

 • Easy-to-use markdown editor.
 • Notebooks and tags, quickly find and organize your notes.
 • Your work is saved automatically as you write, you will never loose
   your work.
 • Plugins: such as embedding YouTube videos and setting text color.
 • Export as PDF and Markdown files.
 • Cross-Note Links to quickly reference other notes.
 • 3 Beautiful app themes to help you create the best writing environment.
 • And much more!

Fedora Account System Username: atim

Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/notes-up

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-04-24 23:29:29 UTC

 -  Do not include that Github specific file: pull_request_template.md

 - License is GPLv2+: (see the headers) and highlightjs is BSD:

License:        GPLv2+

 - Include the highlightjs license file in %files with license:

%license data/assets/highlightjs/highlight.LICENSE

Package Review

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

- 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.
  Note: License file highlight.LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
     "GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "BSD (unspecified)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or
     later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "BSD
     3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 55 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/notes-
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/cz/LC_MESSAGES,
[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.
[-]: 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
[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 2 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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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).
[?]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: notes-up-2.0.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
notes-up.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.philip-scott.notes-up
notes-up.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-cs /usr/share/locale/cz/LC_MESSAGES/notes-up.mo
notes-up.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/cz/LC_MESSAGES/notes-up.mo
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-04-25 09:29:57 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-04-25 14:28:29 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/notes-up

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2019-04-25 16:50:33 UTC
notes-up-2.0.0-3.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-bc02c54d66

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-04-27 22:28:55 UTC
notes-up-2.0.0-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-bc02c54d66

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-05-02 03:33:19 UTC
notes-up-2.0.0-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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