Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-mobility/qt-mobility.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-mobility/qt-mobility-1.0.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Description: Qt Mobility Project delivers a set of new APIs to Qt with features that are well known from the mobile device world, in particular phones. However, these APIs allow the developer to use these features with ease from one framework and apply them to phones, netbooks and non-mobile personal computers. The framework not only improves many aspects of a mobile experience, because it improves the use of these technologies, but has applicability beyond the mobile device arena. rpmlint *.rpm x86_64/*.rpm qt-mobility.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netbooks -> net books, net-books, pocketbooks qt-mobility.src:58: W: configure-without-libdir-spec qt-mobility.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netbooks -> net books, net-books, pocketbooks qt-mobility-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation qt-mobility-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qcrmlgen qt-mobility-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary servicedbgen qt-mobility-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary servicefw qt-mobility-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vsexplorer qt-mobility-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary icheck qt-mobility-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary servicexmlgen 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2319817
YES - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines YES - Spec file matches base package name. YES - Spec has consistant macro usage. YES - Meets Packaging Guidelines. YES - License YES - License field in spec matches YES - License file included in package YES - Spec in American English YES - Spec is legible. YES - Sources match upstream md5sum: NA - Package needs ExcludeArch YES - BuildRequires correct YES - Spec handles locales/find_lang NA - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. YES - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. YES - Package has a correct %clean section. YES - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) YES - Package is code or permissible content. NO - Doc subpackage needed/used. YES - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. YES - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. NA - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun NA - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig YES- .so files in -devel subpackage. NO - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} NA - .la files are removed. NA - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file YES - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. YES - Package has no duplicate files in %files. YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. YES - Package owns all the directories it creates. NO - No rpmlint output. YES - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: YES - Should build in mock. YES - Should build on all supported archs YES - Should function as described. NA - Should have sane scriptlets. NO - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. YES - Should have dist tag YES - Should package latest version NA - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. -devel does not require core package 2. license typo 3. docs found in docs/html/ not included in %docs
1. -devel does include, Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} already. 2. should be License: LGPLv2 with exceptions yes (no +) 3. I'll try to find out what's expected with the docs. the Makefile's only generate a qch file, but there are no install targets.
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-mobility/qt-mobility.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-mobility/qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jul 14 2010 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 1.0.1-3 - License: LGPLv2 ... - -doc subpkg
YES - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines YES - Spec file matches base package name. YES - Spec has consistant macro usage. YES - Meets Packaging Guidelines. YES - License YES - License field in spec matches YES - License file included in package YES - Spec in American English YES - Spec is legible. YES - Sources match upstream md5sum: NA - Package needs ExcludeArch YES - BuildRequires correct YES - Spec handles locales/find_lang NA - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. YES - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. YES - Package has a correct %clean section. YES - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) YES - Package is code or permissible content. YES - Doc subpackage needed/used. YES - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. YES - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. NA - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun NA - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig YES- .so files in -devel subpackage. YES - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} NA - .la files are removed. NA - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file YES - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. YES - Package has no duplicate files in %files. YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. YES - Package owns all the directories it creates. NO - No rpmlint output. YES - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: YES - Should build in mock. YES - Should build on all supported archs YES - Should function as described. NA - Should have sane scriptlets. NO - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. YES - Should have dist tag YES - Should package latest version NA - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. NONE ------ Rex, sorry about the -devel requires main. Completely overlooked, apologies. ------ APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qt-mobility Short Description: Qt Mobility Framework Owners: rdieter,than,kkofler Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-6 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). Please remember to assign the bug to the reviewer. ;)
imported
qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13
qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update qt-mobility'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qt-mobility-1.0.1-3.fc13
Hi all, It seems qt-mobility also have two more optional deps - libqttracker and messagingframework, can anyone help me to review those packages? MeeGo 1.1 need qt-mobility to build agaist those deps. One of the review is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613881 Chen Lei
Created attachment 432386 [details] Patch to build declarative plugin Patch0: qt-mobility-opensource-src-1.0.1-no_declarative.patch is not needed now :)
Feel free to apply for cvs commit access (and apply the patch) if you're interested. else, I'll get to it soonish.
(In reply to comment #13) > Feel free to apply for cvs commit access (and apply the patch) if you're > interested. else, I'll get to it soonish. Applied, thanks. I'll package messagingframework(qmf) ASAP which is a mandatory requirement for qt-mobility messaging modules. See http://doc.qt.nokia.com/qtmobility-1.0/installation.html#pre-requisites-dependencies