Bug 1933937 - Review Request: xbiff - xbiff provides graphical notification of new e-mail
Summary: Review Request: xbiff - xbiff provides graphical notification of new e-mail
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1933920
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2021-03-02 04:56 UTC by Peter Hutterer
Modified: 2021-03-25 00:16 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: xbiff-1.0.4-1.fc35
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2021-03-04 11:38:19 UTC
Type: ---
panemade: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Hutterer 2021-03-02 04:56:37 UTC
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/xbiff/xbiff.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/xbiff/xbiff-1.0.4-1.fc33.src.rpm
xbiff provides graphical notification of new e-mail.
It only handles mail stored in a filesystem accessible file,
not via IMAP, POP or other remote access protocols.
Fedora Account System Username: whot

Note: This utility was previously provided by xorg-x11-apps and is being split
into its own package, see Bug 1933920.

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2021-03-02 10:02:37 UTC
Package Review

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

1) fix the rpmlint warnings before import of this package
xbiff.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xbiff provides graphical notification of new e-mail
xbiff.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C xbiff

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

[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive
     License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "NTP License (legal
     disclaimer) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)
     GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General
     Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated
     file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "[generated file]". 8 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[-]: 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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not 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
[-]: %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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: xbiff-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
xbiff.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xbiff provides graphical notification of new e-mail
xbiff.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C xbiff
xbiff.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xbiff provides graphical notification of new e-mail
xbiff.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C xbiff
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
Checking: xbiff-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
xbiff.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xbiff provides graphical notification of new e-mail
xbiff.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C xbiff
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Source checksums
https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/xbiff-1.0.4.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e1e1a39628a5678585008ef7fb1ff2864edaaa0e062989c2331f8c74e0fec971
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1e1a39628a5678585008ef7fb1ff2864edaaa0e062989c2331f8c74e0fec971

xbiff (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xbiff-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xbiff-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):




Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1933937 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, PHP, R, Java, SugarActivity


Comment 2 Tomas Hrcka 2021-03-03 13:17:44 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xbiff

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2021-03-04 12:23:19 UTC
FEDORA-2021-c32498766f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c32498766f

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2021-03-04 16:59:40 UTC
FEDORA-2021-c32498766f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c32498766f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c32498766f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2021-03-25 00:16:44 UTC
FEDORA-2021-c32498766f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.