Bug 529024 - Review Request: GNUsTicker - Gnome RSS feed reader applet
Review Request: GNUsTicker - Gnome RSS feed reader applet
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-10-14 12:42 EDT by Neil Horman
Modified: 2010-11-03 13:05 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-03 13:05:06 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Neil Horman 2009-10-14 12:42:59 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker-0.1.1-1.src.rpm
Description: GNUsTicker is a Gnome RSS feed reader that can operate in a standalone window, or as a gnome panel applet.
Comment 1 Martin Gieseking 2009-10-16 14:43:33 EDT
Some quick comments:

- append %{?dist} to the release number

- add --disable-static to %{configure}

- add the following line to the build section in order to remove .la files:
  find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name "*.la" -delete

- set the permissions of the .py files to 0755

- you should replace the existing python shebangs according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSystemPython
 
- remove the empty files (NEWS, ChangeLog) from %doc

- add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ to the %build section and remove %{_docdir}/GNUsTicker from %files as the folder only contains the files already added to %doc


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/GNUsTicker-*
GNUsTicker.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
GNUsTicker.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/parser.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker-0.1.1/NEWS
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/gtkutils.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feedparser.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/setup.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/GNUsTicker.a
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/utils.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker/ChangeLog
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/fake_rss.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/rss.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker-0.1.1/ChangeLog
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feeds.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/configuration.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/globaldata.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/widgets/scrolling.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker/NEWS
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/gtkforms.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feeds_configuration.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 17 errors, 3 warnings.
Comment 2 Neil Horman 2009-10-16 20:24:18 EDT
Thanks!  I'll respin this shortly.
Comment 3 Neil Horman 2009-10-16 21:06:00 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker-0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm

There you go, updated with your notes taken into account.
Comment 4 Martin Gieseking 2009-10-17 04:46:08 EDT
Err, your latest spec file differs a bit too much from the initial one. :)
The license tag is wrong, BuildRequires and Requires are missing, BuildRoot is not well-formed, and the description is shortened. 
Also, append %{?_smp_mflags} to make, and bump the release number every time you upload a new revision.
Comment 5 Neil Horman 2009-10-18 22:16:15 EDT
Shoot sorry, I updated an old version of the spec.  Ill update and post the rigj rpm / spec in the am
Comment 6 Neil Horman 2009-10-19 07:10:30 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker-0.1.1-2.fc11.src.rpm

There you, properly cleaned up as per your notes.  Thanks.
Comment 7 Neil Horman 2009-11-06 08:45:39 EST
ping, any further thoughts?
Comment 8 Martin Gieseking 2009-11-06 08:53:37 EST
Sorry, I'm completely busy with my job at the moment and currently don't have the time to do full reviews.
Comment 9 Neil Horman 2009-11-06 09:46:29 EST
no worries, just checking in
Comment 10 Garrett Holmstrom 2010-01-16 01:07:12 EST
I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review in hopes that it will help get this request moving again.

See below for rpmlint output

ok - Package meets naming guidelines
ok - Spec file matches base package name
NO - Meets Packaging Guidelines
ok - License (GPLv2+)
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:
31914926b70230c4ac0eacea95fed5b7  GNUsTicker.tar.gz
31914926b70230c4ac0eacea95fed5b7  GNUsTicker.tar.gz.upstream

ok - BuildRequires correct
na - Spec handles locales/find_lang
na - Package has .so files in %{_libdir} and runs ldconfig in %post and %postun
ok - Package does not bundle system libs
na - Package relocatability is justified
ok - No duplicate files in %files
ok - Spec has %defattr in each %files section
ok - File permissions are sane
ok - Spec has a correct %clean section
ok - Spec has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install
ok - Spec has consistant macro usage
ok - Package is code or permissible content
na - Building for earlier than F9 and spec has correct buildroot
ok - File names valid UTF-8

ok - %doc files don't affect runtime
na - Headers go in -devel package
na - Static libs go in -static package
ok - Package contains no .la files
no - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file installed w/ desktop-file-install (Unnecessary:  panel applet)
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others'
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target

ok - Compiles and builds on at least one arch
ok - Compiles and builds on all archs or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1925747

SHOULD Items:

na - Query upstream for license inclusion
no - Translations of description and summary
ok - Builds in mock
ok - Scriptlets are sane
na - Non-devel subpackages require base w/ fully-versioned dependency
na - pkgconfig (.pc) files go in -devel package
ok - Latest version
ok - Has dist tag
ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin

########################################

* rpmlint output

SPECS/GNUsTicker.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
GNUsTicker.src: W: no-buildroot-tag

As far as I know this is fine if you never plan to build this on el5, but on the other hand it doesn't hurt to include a BuildRoot line anyway.

GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/widgets/__init__.py
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/__init__.py
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/pop3.py
GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/extractors.py

Either mark these non-executable or add shebang lines to them.

* Meets packaging guidelines

Drop the explicit Requires from the spec file - rpmbuild will pick up required libraries for you.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

* Other comments

This program is ancient.  Its last commit was four years ago.  Do you plan to maintain it with bugfixes and the like yourself?
Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-03 13:05:06 EDT
It's been most of a year since the last comment with no response from the submitter; I'm just going to close this out.

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