Bug 1720939 - Review Request: maildir-utils - A command-line based Maildir manager with Emacs and Guile interfaces
Summary: Review Request: maildir-utils - A command-line based Maildir manager with Ema...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
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:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-06-16 17:05 UTC by Jani Juhani Sinervo
Modified: 2019-06-30 02:26 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-06-20 06:00:17 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jani: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jani Juhani Sinervo 2019-06-16 17:05:56 UTC
Spec URL: http://sham1.sinervo.fi/files/rpm-review/maildir-utils/maildir-utils.spec
SRPM URL: http://sham1.sinervo.fi/files/rpm-review/maildir-utils/maildir-utils-1.2.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: Maildir-utils (mu) is a command-line based manager for Maildir-based mailboxes, with GNU Guile bindings and an Emacs interface.
Fedora Account System Username: sham1

The reason I went for the name "maildir-utils" instead of the more logical "mu" is because there already exists a "mu" in Fedora, and the existing package of "mu" doesn't collide with "maildir-utils". This name of "maildir-utils" also has been already used on some Linux distros (e.g. Debian) as an alternative package name for this utility.

A koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35579417

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-06-18 19:01:42 UTC
 - Latest version is 1.3.1 on Github

 - Not needed anymore:

Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info

%post
/sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/mu4e.info  %{_infodir}/dir || :

%preun
if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
/sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/mu4e.info  %{_infodir}/dir || :
fi

%post guile
/sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/mu-guile.info  %{_infodir}/dir || :

%preun guile
if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
/sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/mu-guile.info  %{_infodir}/dir || :
fi

 - Globbing major soname version is now forbidden to avoid unintentional soname bump, be more specific instead:

%{_libdir}/libguile-mu.so.0*

 - Patch the obsolete m4 macros and send the patch upstream

[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: mu-1.2.0/configure.ac:58


   Replace AM_PROG_LIBTOOL with LT_INIT





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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3
     or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v7)", "GNU Free Documentation
     License", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License
     (with Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General
     Public License", "ISC License", "GNU General Public License", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 164 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/maildir-utils/review-maildir-
     utils/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 40960 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]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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:
[x]: 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 maildir-
     utils-guile-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1116160 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: maildir-utils-1.2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          maildir-utils-guile-1.2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          maildir-utils-guile-devel-1.2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          maildir-utils-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          maildir-utils-debugsource-1.2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          maildir-utils-1.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
maildir-utils-guile-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Comment 2 Jani Juhani Sinervo 2019-06-19 09:40:14 UTC
> - Latest version is 1.3.1 on Github

Alright, I'll use that then. Guess I didn't see it at first.

> - Not needed anymore

Right, removed.

> - Patch the obsolete m4 macros and send the patch upstream

Done and sent.

Spec URL: http://sham1.sinervo.fi/files/rpm-review/maildir-utils/maildir-utils.spec
SRPM URL: http://sham1.sinervo.fi/files/rpm-review/maildir-utils/maildir-utils-1.3.1-1.fc30.src.rpm

A koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35628786

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-06-19 11:27:48 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-06-19 13:31:16 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maildir-utils

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2019-06-20 06:18:40 UTC
FEDORA-2019-9eb52ce7c4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-9eb52ce7c4

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-06-20 06:31:52 UTC
FEDORA-2019-488f748607 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-488f748607

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-06-22 02:45:56 UTC
maildir-utils-1.3.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-9eb52ce7c4

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-06-22 06:03:58 UTC
maildir-utils-1.3.1-1.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-2019-488f748607

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-06-30 00:56:17 UTC
maildir-utils-1.3.1-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2019-06-30 02:26:43 UTC
maildir-utils-1.3.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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.