Spec URL: http://jmoskovc.fedorapeople.org/libreport.spec SRPM URL: http://jmoskovc.fedorapeople.org/libreport-2.0.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Libraries providing API for reporting different problems in applications to different bug targets like Bugzilla, ftp, trac, etc... libreport.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trac -> trace, tract, track libreport-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libreport-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end libreport-gtk.x86_64: W: no-documentation libreport-gtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bug-reporting-wizard libreport-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - documentation is in progress will be added soon
formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: 95e3414edaf08373d32dae3ea6ff9e3b26db77ba libreport-2.0.2.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. BAD specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. BAD license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, scriptlets exist BAD owns the directories it creates. BAD doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel OK pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK* a GUI app. - you mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} and %{buildroot} - 2 files are licensed under GPLv2-only (libreport.h and binhex.c), licensing header completely missing in some - rpmlint warns about spelling (false positives), missing docs and man page (would be nice to have) - %{includedir}/libreport is not owned - should it really own the /etc/abrt directory? - is GUI app, but not intended to be run by user, correct?
(In reply to comment #1) > formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: > > OK source files match upstream: > 95e3414edaf08373d32dae3ea6ff9e3b26db77ba libreport-2.0.2.tar.gz > OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. > BAD specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros > consistently. > OK dist tag is present. > BAD license field matches the actual license. > OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. > OK latest version is being packaged. > OK BuildRequires are proper. > OK compiler flags are appropriate. > OK %clean is present. > OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). > OK debuginfo package looks complete. > OK* rpmlint is silent. > OK final provides and requires look sane. > N/A %check is present and all tests pass. > OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, > scriptlets exist > BAD owns the directories it creates. > BAD doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. > OK no duplicates in %files. > OK file permissions are appropriate. > OK correct scriptlets present. > OK code, not content. > OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. > OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. > OK headers in -devel > OK pkgconfig files in -devel > OK no libtool .la droppings. > OK* a GUI app. > > - you mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} and %{buildroot} - fixed > - 2 files are licensed under GPLv2-only (libreport.h and binhex.c), licensing > header completely missing in some - fixed > - rpmlint warns about spelling (false positives), missing docs and man page > (would be nice to have) - coming soon :) > - %{includedir}/libreport is not owned - fixed > - should it really own the /etc/abrt directory? - yes, it's considered a part of ABRT and it shares some config files > - is GUI app, but not intended to be run by user, correct? - exactly - I reuploaded spec, srpm and sources, please re-check
All issues are fixed now, package is APPROVED source archive is updated, but version not bumped, new sha1sum is 886fbf4e2d977865c644e257688ecad1c8c7f782 libreport-2.0.2.tar.gz
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libreport Short Description: Generic library for reporting various problems to the different ticketing systems Owners: dvlasenk npajkovs mtoman mlichvar kklic jmoskovc Branches: f15 InitialCC:
WARNING: "dvlasenk" is not a valid FAS account. Can you correct, please, and then re-set the cvs flag?
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libreport Short Description: Generic library for reporting various problems to the different ticketing systems Owners: vda npajkovs mtoman mlichvar kklic jmoskovc Branches: f15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15
libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
libreport-2.0.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.