* Wed Oct 13 2010 Kalev Lember <kalev> - 0.4.0-2
- Updated summary
- Added missing BR gettext

Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc.spec
SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc-0.4.0-2.fc14.src.rpm

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2532804

I'll review it too.

Kalev, sorry for the delay - I was busy with my daily official duties. I'll review it in a couple of hours.

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages can be ignored in this case:

Sulaco ~/Desktop: rpmlint qdigidoc-*
qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidocclient
qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidoccrypto

^^^ it implies that no man-pages are provided.

qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

^^^ nautilus plugis are stored in libdir and sometimes they are not a executable binaries (I mean made by gcc et al.)

qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: no-documentation

^^^ exactly what he said - no docs for this sub-package

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Sulaco ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license  (LGPLv2 or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2*
38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780  qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2
38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780  qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro).
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.

- The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately two directories are not owned by anyone in the dependency chain - %{_datadir}/mime/packages/ and %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/. Their respective owners are - shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme. Please, add them as explicit Requires (or ensure that someone from dependency chain will require them).

+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Ok, I found the only possible issue - two potentially missing rutime requirements (shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme). Please, either add them as Requires or ensure that someone from dependency chain already requires them, and I'll continue.

Thanks for your review.

> Ok, I found the only possible issue - two potentially missing rutime
> requirements (shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme). Please, either add them
> as Requires or ensure that someone from dependency chain already requires them,
> and I'll continue.

Added hicolor-icon-theme, but I'm not sure what to do with shared-mime-info as http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo recommends to avoid depending on shared-mime-info:

"Note that similarly to the gtk-update-icon-cache code, these scriptlets should be run only if the user has update-mime-info installed and without a specific Requires: shared-mime-info."

Any suggestions?


* Wed Oct 20 2010 Kalev Lember <kalev> - 0.4.0-3
- Require hicolor-icon-theme (#642555)

Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc.spec
SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/qdigidoc-0.4.0-3.fc15.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #6)

> Added hicolor-icon-theme, but I'm not sure what to do with shared-mime-info as
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo recommends
> to avoid depending on shared-mime-info:
> 
> "Note that similarly to the gtk-update-icon-cache code, these scriptlets should
> be run only if the user has update-mime-info installed and without a specific
> Requires: shared-mime-info."
> 
> Any suggestions?

Well, the short answer - I wasn't aware of this strange (as it looks for me) exception. I'll try to investigate this situation in details, but for now - I think we should obey this particular rule. I gave up my claim to add shared-mime-info as requires. 


Ok, I can't find any other issues, so this package is

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: qdigidoc
Short Description: Estonian digital signature application
Owners: kalev anttix tuju
Branches: f12 f13 f14
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package imported and built for rawhide, closing the ticket.