Bug 512497 - Review Request: bleachbit - Remove unnecessary files, free space, and maintain privacy
Summary: Review Request: bleachbit - Remove unnecessary files, free space, and maintai...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Fabian Affolter
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-07-18 02:57 UTC by Rahul Sundaram
Modified: 2014-01-24 12:41 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-07-24 23:15:57 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mail: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rahul Sundaram 2009-07-18 02:57:42 UTC
Spec URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/bleachbit.spec
SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/bleachbit-0.5.4-1.src.rpm
Description: 

BleachBit deletes unnecessary files to free valuable disk space, maintain privacy, and remove junk. Rid your system of old clutter including cache, cookies, Internet history, localizations, logs, temporary files, and broken shortcuts. Designed for Linux and Windows systems, it wipes clean Adobe Reader, APT, Bash, Beagle, Chromium, Epiphany, Firefox, Flash, GIMP, Google Chrome, Google Earth, Internet Explorer, Java, KDE, OpenOffice.org, Opera, RealPlayer, Safari, Skype, VIM, XChat, Yum, and more.

Comment 1 Fabian Affolter 2009-07-18 08:53:52 UTC
Just some comments after a quick look at your spec file:

- Isn't 'gettext' missing as a BR?
- 'make' is not needed as a BR
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- '-n %{name}-%{version}' in the %setup section is not needed, this is the default
- What tell rpmlint about the line length in the %description?
- You should use only 'desktop-file-install' or 'desktop-file-validate' not both
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

Comment 3 Fabian Affolter 2009-07-24 21:26:49 UTC
Package Review
==============

Package: 

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
     [fab@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint bleachbit-0.5.4-2.src.rpm 
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
     Binary RPM(s):
     [fab@laptop09 noarch]$ rpmlint bleachbit-0.5.4-2.noarch.rpm 
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
 [x] Package is not relocatable
 [x] Buildroot is correct
     master   : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
     spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [?] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
     License type: GPLv3+
 [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 %doc

 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
     Upstream source: c7280d36b73dace8ba405ccfe603b4f6  bleachbit-0.5.4.tar.bz2
     Build source:    c7280d36b73dace8ba405ccfe603b4f6  bleachbit-0.5.4.tar.bz2
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] The spec file handles locales properly.  %find_lang used for locales
 [-] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [-] Included tests passed successfully 
 [x] Package consistently uses macros
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content
 [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8

 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required
 [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present
 [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
 [-] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete
 [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)
 
 [x] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI application
 [x] Follows desktop entry spec
 [x] Valid .desktop Name
 [x] Valid .desktop GenericName
 [x] Valid .desktop Categories
 [x] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
 [x] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [?] Timestamps preserved with cp and install
 [-] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
 [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] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     Tested:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=
 [x] Package functions as described
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct
 [-] File based requires are sane
 [x] Changelog in allowed format

Timestamps are not preserved.  I guess that adding 'INSTALL="install -p"' to 'make install' solves this.

DistTag is missing.  For me this looks unusual but it's allowed and the packager's call.

Please fix the time stamps issue before cvs import.

Beside that I see no further blocker, package APPROVED.

Comment 4 Rahul Sundaram 2009-07-24 21:50:29 UTC
Thanks for the comprehensive review. I have fixed the timestamp and added the dist tag as well.

http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/bleachbit.spec
http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/bleachbit-0.5.4-3.fc11.src.rpm

Comment 5 Rahul Sundaram 2009-07-24 22:03:17 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: bleachbit
Short Description: Remove unnecessary files, free space, and maintain privacy
Owners: sundaram
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
InitialCC:

Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-24 22:22:58 UTC
The ticket title should reflect the name of the package; I've corrected it.

CVS done.

Comment 7 Christopher Meng 2014-01-24 02:46:52 UTC
Co-Maintainer here.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: bleachbit
New Branches: epel7
Owners: cicku

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-01-24 12:41:24 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).


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