Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gobby05.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gobby05-0.4.94-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Development version of gobby 0.5, a collaborative editor Fedora Account System Username: till rpmlint shows only bogus spelling warnings and this: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gobby05-0.4.94/COPYING I will create an upstream ticket about this, if it does not exist. The package contains patches from debian. I still need to find out their upstream status. Also it crashes currently, when I create a new document, but seems to work afterwards.
*** Bug 514350 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. The spec link is not valid for some reason, but the srpm link is OK. I suspect anything labeled the "development version" is probably pretty outdated after ten months; does this need an update? It fails to build in any case. Here's a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5489118
Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gobby05.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gobby05-0.4.94-2.fc17.src.rpm Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5490430 (In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #2) > I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, > but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the > ones which aren't stale. Thank you. > The spec link is not valid for some reason, but the srpm link is OK. The permissions were wrong, fixed. > I suspect anything labeled the "development version" is probably pretty > outdated after ten months; does this need an update? No, there is not much development going on. > It fails to build in any case. Here's a scratch build: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5489118 Addressed in above files.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5593591 $ rpmlint -i -v * gobby05.src: I: checking gobby05.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gobby -> Lobby, Hobby, Bobby The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.src: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.src: W: strange-permission 0002-code-util-gtk-compat.hpp-fix-render_icon-with-missin.patch 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission 0001-Fix-build-against-recent-gtkmm3-versions.patch 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission gobby05.spec 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission 0001-create-directories-with-mode-0700-Debian-bug-636015.patch 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: I: checking-url http://releases.0x539.de/gobby/gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.i686: I: checking gobby05.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gobby -> Lobby, Hobby, Bobby The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.i686: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gobby05-0.4.94/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. gobby05.x86_64: I: checking gobby05.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gobby -> Lobby, Hobby, Bobby The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.x86_64: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gobby05-0.4.94/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. gobby05-debuginfo.i686: I: checking gobby05-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gobby-0.4.94/code/main.cpp The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. gobby05-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking gobby05-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gobby-0.4.94/code/main.cpp The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. gobby05.spec: I: checking-url http://releases.0x539.de/gobby/gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. Fix the permissions of your spec, patches and srpm. The incorrect FSF address needs to be reported upstream. Remove the executable bits from the source files.
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #4) > Fix the permissions of your spec, patches and srpm. This will happen automatically, because git does not store permissions besides executable and during normal operations the SRPM is created by koji from git. > The incorrect FSF address needs to be reported upstream. http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/ticket/609 > Remove the executable bits from the source files. Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gobby05.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/gobby05-0.4.94-3.fc19.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5593714 $ rpmlint -i -v * gobby05.i686: I: checking gobby05.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gobby -> Lobby, Hobby, Bobby The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.i686: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gobby05-0.4.94/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. gobby05.src: I: checking gobby05.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gobby -> Lobby, Hobby, Bobby The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.src: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.src: W: strange-permission 0002-code-util-gtk-compat.hpp-fix-render_icon-with-missin.patch 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission 0001-Fix-build-against-recent-gtkmm3-versions.patch 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission gobby05.spec 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: W: strange-permission 0001-create-directories-with-mode-0700-Debian-bug-636015.patch 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gobby05.src: I: checking-url http://releases.0x539.de/gobby/gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.x86_64: I: checking gobby05.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gobby -> Lobby, Hobby, Bobby The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. gobby05.x86_64: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gobby05-0.4.94/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. gobby05-debuginfo.i686: I: checking gobby05-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking gobby05-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://gobby.0x539.de/ (timeout 10 seconds) gobby05.spec: I: checking-url http://releases.0x539.de/gobby/gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings. OK, the 0640 mode for the patches and spec is not that critical. Wrong FSF address has been reported upstream. No further objections from my side. Still one issue, but it is not to be considered as a blocker: The initial buildroot cleaning in %install is obsolete for ages and could be safely dropped. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv2+ [+] 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * b9798808447cd94178430f0fb273d0e45d0ca30ab04560e3790bac469e03bb00 gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz b9798808447cd94178430f0fb273d0e45d0ca30ab04560e3790bac469e03bb00 gobby-0.4.94.tar.gz.orig [+] 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. [+] 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. [+] 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 subpackage) 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] 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. [+] 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. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (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). [+] 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: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be 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}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [+] 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. 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. [+] 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 filesystem 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. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Thank you very much Mario! I will remove the cleaning in %install. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gobby05 Short Description: Development version of gobby 0.5, a collaborative editor Owners: till Branches: f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
gobby05-0.4.94-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gobby05-0.4.94-4.fc19
gobby05-0.4.94-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
gobby05-0.4.94-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.