Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico-1.2-1.src.rpm Description: Tellico is a collection manager for KDE. It includes default collections for books, bibliographies, comic books, videos, music, coins, stamps, trading cards, and wines, and also allows custom collections. Unlimited user-defined fields are allowed. Filters are available to limit the visible entries by definable criteria. Full customization for printing is possible through editing the default XSLT file. It can import CSV, Bibtex, and Bibtexml and export CSV, HTML, Bibtex, Bibtexml, and PilotDB. Entries may be imported directly from Amazon.com.
OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: a7ecc139d820279b0a89d8f594110094 tellico-1.2.tar.gz a7ecc139d820279b0a89d8f594110094 tellico-1.2.tar.gz.1 See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. See below - Should build in mock. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. Issues: 1. In your desktop-file-install you have --vendor="", but according to guidelines that should be --vendor=fedora. Also, this causes builds under mock to fail because the fedora-tellio.desktop file doesn't exist. 2. INSTALL NEWS README can probibly all be dropped. INSTALL is the generic auto* install document, NEWS and README are both of size 0. 3. The Summary is a bit generic: Summary: collection manager Perhaps at least add that it's a KDE based collection manager? 4. rpmlint says: W: tellico summary-not-capitalized collection manager So, it should at least be "A KDE collection manager"
(In reply to comment #1) > > 1. In your desktop-file-install you have --vendor="", but according > to guidelines that should be --vendor=fedora. Also, this causes > builds under mock to fail because the fedora-tellio.desktop file doesn't > exist. As you can guess, I had that. I hesitated because the desktop files is included in the project. I will revert that to vendor fedora. > 2. INSTALL NEWS README can probibly all be dropped. INSTALL is the generic > auto* install document, NEWS and README are both of size 0. You are right. Done. > 3. The Summary is a bit generic: > Summary: collection manager > Perhaps at least add that it's a KDE based collection manager? Honestly I don't like to to label a program based on the framework used. That can be seen from its dependencies. This is build with kde and not needed or used by kde. It is interesting even if kde is not used... although it will require the dependencies to be satisfied. > 4. rpmlint says: > W: tellico summary-not-capitalized collection manager > So, it should at least be "A KDE collection manager" I changed that to "A collection manager". If you insist I can add there the KDE word though, I am not dogmatic about it. :-) Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico-1.2-2.src.rpm
All the changes look good. I don't feel strongly about having KDE in the Summary. I am using the package under Xfce, so it works fine here. It's worth noting that due to bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202944 I had to install 28 -devel packages to install this. Thats not this packages fault however. ;) Some new rpmlint errors (or perhaps ones I missed the first time): E: tellico binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/tellico ['/usr/lib', '/usr/ lib/qt-3.3/lib'] Suggestion: perhaps add '--disable-rpath' to the configure line? W: tellico dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/tellico/common /usr/share/ doc/HTML/en/common W: tellico symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/tellico/common / usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common W: tellico dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/tellico/common /usr/share/ doc/HTML/fr/common W: tellico symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/tellico/common / usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/common Suggestion: change to relative symlinks?
Any further progress on this submission? Did you see the suggestions in comment #3?
(In reply to comment #4) > Any further progress on this submission? I am sorry. I have been busy with the deadline on FC6 rebuild. > Did you see the suggestions in comment #3? I am commenting them bellow. (In reply to comment #3) > All the changes look good. I don't feel strongly about having KDE in the > Summary. I am using the package under Xfce, so it works fine here. Good. :-) > It's worth noting that due to bug: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202944 > I had to install 28 -devel packages to install this. Thats not this > packages fault however. ;) Good. > Some new rpmlint errors (or perhaps ones I missed the first time): > > E: tellico binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/tellico ['/usr/lib', '/usr/ > lib/qt-3.3/lib'] > > Suggestion: perhaps add '--disable-rpath' to the configure line? Done. > W: tellico dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/tellico/common /usr/share/ > doc/HTML/en/common > W: tellico symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/tellico/common / > usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common > W: tellico dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/tellico/common /usr/share/ > doc/HTML/fr/common > W: tellico symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/tellico/common / > usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/common > > Suggestion: change to relative symlinks? What is the problem with absolute symlinks? I am just asking. In this particular case I get: $ rpm -qf /usr/share/doc/HTML/ fedora-release-5-5 kdelibs-3.5.4-5.0.fc5.kde So the directory is always owned and it is pulled from the requirements. The package with only the symlink issue, and a new upstream release is here: Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico-1.2.2-1.src.rpm
> What is the problem with absolute symlinks? I am just asking. Well, rpmlint says: symlink-should-be-relative : Absolute symlinks are problematic eg. when working with chroot environments. While it would be good to sometime fix this, I don't guess it's a blocker, as many other kde packages do the same thing and I don't know how many people would use the package in a chroot. You might investigate if it would be easy to fix. Everything else looks good, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE once the package has been imported and built.
Imported and built. Thanks for the review.