Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/qpdf.spec SRPM URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/qpdf-3.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: QPDF is a command-line program that does structural, content-preserving transformations on PDF files. It could have been called something like pdf-to-pdf. It includes support for merging and splitting PDFs and to manipulate the list of pages in a PDF file. It is not a PDF viewer or a program capable of converting PDF into other formats. Fedora Account System Username: jpopelka
Marking this ticket as Trivial according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#The_Whiteboard link to a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4393240 rpmlint output (all warnings are false positives): qpdf-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearize -> linear, Earline qpdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pdf -> pd, pf, pd f qpdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pdf -> pd, pf, pd f
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: 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 is included in %doc. [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> Issues: > [!]: 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 is included in %doc. > [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is > installed. The license file (Artistic-2.0) is included in qpdf-libs. %files libs %doc README TODO ChangeLog Artistic-2.0 And because the main package (and -devel subpackage) require the -libs subpackage the license file is always installed.
Oh, the first of those should have been a pass, sorry. [+]: 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 is included in %doc. How about the doc subpackage though? Should the doc subpackage require qpdf-libs?
The -doc subpackage doesn't contain any binary or source code so my personal view is that no. But I've added the requirement to comply with the second MUST. Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/qpdf.spec SRPM URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/qpdf-3.0.1-2.fc17.src.rpm
Thanks. ACCEPT
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: qpdf Short Description: Command-line tools and library for transforming PDF files Owners: jpopelka twaugh
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: qpdf New Branches: f17 f18 Owners: jpopelka twaugh Other fedora branches have been requested in bug #863816.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: qpdf New Branches: el6 Owners: jpopelka twaugh EPEL-6 branch has been requested in bug #1004710.