Spec URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/cryptkeeper/cryptkeeper.spec SRPM URL: http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/cryptkeeper/cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders
I will review this none
================================ Key: [P] Pass [F] Fail See [n] [-] Not applicable [?] Questions (see comments) ================================ [P] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm cryptkeeper.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/cryptkeeper 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [P] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [P] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [P] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [P] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. GPLv3 [P] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv3 [P] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [P] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [P] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [P] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. d02918b2058854177d2f59b837c2743f cryptkeeper-0.9.5.tar.gz (upstream) d02918b2058854177d2f59b837c2743f cryptkeeper-0.9.5.tar.gz (srpm) [P] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [-] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [P] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [P] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/[ ] is strictly forbidden. [-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or sub package) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [-] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [P] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. [P] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [P] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [P] MUST: The %clean section is not required for F-13 and above. Each package for F-12 and below (or EPEL) MUST have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [P] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [P] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc sub package. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) [P] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [-] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [-] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [P] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [P] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [P] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the file system or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [P] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). (For F12 and EPEL Only) [P] MUST: All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [P] Should build in mock. Build in koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2355949 [P] Should build on all supported archs Build in koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2355949 [P] Should function as described. [P] Should have sane scriptlets. [-] Should have sub packages require base package with fully versioned depend. [P] Should have dist tag [P] Should package latest version [-] Check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: NONE = APPROVED =
Thanks Tim for reviewing this package
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: cryptkeeper Short Description: A Linux system tray applet that manages EncFS encrypted folders Owners: hicham Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: hicham
GIT done (by process-cvs-requests.py). with f14 branch added.
cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc14
cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13
cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc12
cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cryptkeeper-0.9.5-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: cryptkeeper New Branches: epel7 Owners: salimma
*** Bug 1098472 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comments from the primary maintainer?
@ Jon: no response to my branch request from several months ago in the bug report I marked as a duplicate of this.
Hicham, ping? Let me know if you have objection to an EPEL7 branch, and if you'd like to comaintain.
Hi, Sorry for this late response. I don't have any objection concerning this. You have my approval.
Thanks Hicham! Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: cryptkeeper New Branches: epel7 Owners: salimma
Git done (by process-git-requests).