Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/dexter/dexter.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/dexter/dexter-0.18-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Dexter is a very simple, easy to use address book, designed with the home user in mind. This personal contact manager integrates with Postler, and can import and export contacts in vCard format.
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: F14/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: Source RPM: [fab@laptop023 SRPMS]$ rpmlint dexter-0.18-1.fc14.src.rpm dexter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vCard -> v Card, Card, card 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Binary RPM(s): dexter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vCard -> v Card, Card, card dexter.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dexter dexter.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dexter-server 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable [x] Buildroot is correct (if it's still used) master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] 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: 740a7781477afad1492f9aa362ff2cee dexter_0.18.tar.gz Build source: 740a7781477afad1492f9aa362ff2cee dexter_0.18.tar.gz [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 (if it's still used) [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 (if it's still used) [-] 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 [x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2948543 [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 - The icon named in the .desktop file is not showing up. Perhaps the image is only available on ubuntu. Beside that I see no further blocker, package APPROVED
Thanks for the review! Can you please set the fedora-review flag?
(In reply to comment #2) > Can you please set the fedora-review flag? Sorry, I missed that.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dexter Short Description: A sexy, simple address book with end users in mind Owners: thm Branches: f13 f14 f15
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Can you please change the description? I'm afraid that people find the word "sexy" harassing.
In Arch Linux it is "Address Book that goes hand in hand with Postler"
dexter-0.18-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dexter-0.18-2.fc14
dexter-0.18-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dexter-0.18-2.fc15
dexter-0.18-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dexter-0.18-2.fc13
Thanks for changing the description in the spec. Let's do this in bugzilla, too: Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dexter New Short Description: Address Book that goes hand in hand with Postler
dexter-0.18-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
This SCM request is not valid. You cannot change the summary of a package in pkgdb using an SCM request (as we have no interface by which to change that information). These are processed by script, so please use _only_ the formats given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests.
I'm sorry, to me this format looked correct because the wiki reads: Package Change Requests for existing packages To request: * [...] * other special git requests, changes to the description, etc [...] The Package Name field is mandatory, and it is recommended to list the Owners. Please only include other fields which need to be changed or updated. That's *exactly* what I did, so I wonder what the proper format would be.
This text: ---- If you need other special changes done which cannot be handled by the template field, such as a package that was created with the wrong name that has never been imported or built, or otherwise out of the scope of the template please state your desire and justification below the template in your Bugzilla comment. ---- Is intended to cover that case. There's also the nice warning at the top: ---- Machine processing SCM requests are processed by scripts. Please do not deviate from the prescribed formats or attempt to make up new fields. If you need special processing not indicated here, simply describe what you need in as much detail as possible and raise the flag as normal; an admin will read your request and process it manually. The scripts only look at the final request in a ticket, so please submit only one request at a time. If you need to change something before processing, simply paste in a new request and the previous one will be ignored. ---- And "New Short Description" is certainly a field you made up, so.... Anyway, since it's simply not possible for an SCM admin to change the description field, I've simply removed mention of it from the document. pkgdb is intended to keep that information updated from what's in the rawhide packages, though that may not currently be enabled. If you absolutely require that the description be changed immediately, please open an infrastructure ticket as someone with direct access to the database will have to make that change. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/
(In reply to comment #15) > Anyway, since it's simply not possible for an SCM admin to change the > description field, I've simply removed mention of it from the document. pkgdb > is intended to keep that information updated from what's in the rawhide > packages, though that may not currently be enabled. If you absolutely require > that the description be changed immediately, please open an infrastructure > ticket as someone with direct access to the database will have to make that > change. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ See https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2703.
*** Bug 693921 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
ps we have a patched python-distutils-extra now that no longer fails when no screen is available, so xvfb-run is no longer needed
dexter-0.18-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dexter-0.18-3.fc13
dexter-0.18-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dexter-0.18-3.fc14
dexter-0.18-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dexter-0.18-3.fc15
dexter-0.18-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
dexter-0.18-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
dexter-0.18-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.