Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://soumya.fedorapeople.org/wnotes/wnotes.spec SRPM URL: http://soumya.fedorapeople.org/wnotes/wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Wnotes are Post-It (tm) type notes for Linux and other systems with X Window System desktops. They use the Xlib libraries and are self contained, and should work well with many different GUI desktops.
Hello Soumya. You must provide the 'Group' of the package. After that I'm offering to review this.
hey Matthia, Is it okay if I review this package please? Soumya's helped me with one of my reviews, and as a review swap, I'd like to review this for him? Thanks, Ankur
Hello Ankur, no problem for me: feel free to do the review if you want.
Thanks Matthia :) /me takes over
Review: + OK - NA ? ISSUE + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License ? License field in spec matches ^^ Wouldn't GPLv2+ be more appropriate than GPLv3 as per the following license check output? aclocal.m4: GENERATED FILE AUTHORS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ChangeLog: *No copyright* UNKNOWN config.guess: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE config.sub: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE configure: GENERATED FILE configure.in: *No copyright* UNKNOWN COPYING: UNKNOWN depcomp: GPL GENERATED FILE INSTALL: *No copyright* UNKNOWN install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like) ltmain.sh: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE main.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE Makefile.am: *No copyright* UNKNOWN Makefile.in: GENERATED FILE missing: GPL GENERATED FILE NEWS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN notewindow.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) README: *No copyright* UNKNOWN wnote.1: UNKNOWN ? License file included in package File included is GPLv3. Think this is OK, since the License is 2+. + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ spectool -g wnotes.spec Getting http://wnotes.googlecode.com/files/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz to ./wnotes-1.2.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 319k 100 319k 0 0 294k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 350k [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ md5sum wnotes-1.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz 705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7 wnotes-1.2.tar.gz 705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7 ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. ? Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file ^^ This is a GUI, right? + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + No rpmlint output. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ !rpmlint rpmlint ../SPECS/wnotes.spec wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/wnotes-*.rpm wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/main.cpp wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/notewindow.cpp 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ + final provides and requires are sane: == wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: libX11-devel libXpm-devel == wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm == Provides: wnotes = 1.2-1.fc16 wnotes(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16 Requires: libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) == wnotes-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm == Provides: wnotes-debuginfo = 1.2-1.fc16 wnotes-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16 Requires: SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs ? Should function as described. ^^ I installed and tried to run it. It fails with the following error: [ankur@ankur result]$ wnote X Error of failed request: BadName (named color or font does not exist) Major opcode of failed request: 45 (X_OpenFont) Serial number of failed request: 23 Current serial number in output stream: 24 [ankur@ankur result]$ You will need to see why this is happening and correct the package. Unfortunately, this is a BLOCKER. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Please see why it fails to run. 2. Please check the License, I feel GPLv2+ is more apt than 3. 3. A desktop file needs to be included if this is a GUI app. Thanks, Ankur
First of all sorry to resume again much late - Issues - 1) It fails to run due to non-availability of specific X11 fonts package, I have mailed the upstream to include it in prerequisites. 2) License will be GPLv2+, though have mailed the upstream for clarification. 3) Upstream is notified to add a .desktop file. The lates version of wnotes 1.17 has some compile issues, waiting for the upstream to rectify the source software along with the above 3 fixes.
Modified SPEC and SRPM url : SRPM File : http://soumya.fedorapeople.org/wnotes/wnotes-1.20-1.fc17.src.rpm SPEC File : http://soumya.fedorapeople.org/wnotes/wnotes.spec Tried installing it from rpm generated and it installs fine. Ankur, please verify.
Hi Soumya, It does run, but I can't write in it, or close it, or resize it. I'm on gnome3. Can you? Is this obsolete and not functional software any more?(In which case, there isn't a point packaging it up for fedora) Thanks, Ankur
Hi Soumya, Are you going to pursue this review? Otherwise we can close it. Thanks, Ankur
I spoke with the developer earlier and I didn't get any suitable reply about gnome3 and its working. Also any other new releases has not come up. I think we can close the review for it. Thanks Soumya
Closing.