Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 868838
Review Request: nepomukshell - Debugging and maintenance tool for Nepomuk
Last modified: 2015-11-01 20:36:55 EST
Spec URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomukshell.spec SRPM URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomukshell-0.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Nepomuk maintenance and debugging tool for Nepomuk aimed for KDE and Nepomuk developers Fedora Account System Username: dvratil Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4614457
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [ ]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "LGPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/grulja/Downloads/868838-nepomukshell/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nepomukshell-0.8.0-1.fc17.src.rpm nepomukshell-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm nepomukshell-0.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm nepomukshell.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nepomuk -> Nepotism nepomukshell.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nepomuk -> Nepotism nepomukshell.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nepomuk -> Nepotism nepomukshell.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nepomuk -> Nepotism nepomukshell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nepomukshell 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nepomukshell-debuginfo nepomukshell nepomukshell.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nepomuk -> Nepotism nepomukshell.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nepomuk -> Nepotism nepomukshell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nepomukshell 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nepomukshell-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nepomukshell-0.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libkdecore.so.5()(64bit) libkdeui.so.5()(64bit) libkio.so.5()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnepomuk.so.4()(64bit) libnepomukquery.so.4()(64bit) libnepomukutils.so.4()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsoprano.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- nepomukshell-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: nepomukshell-debuginfo = 0.8.0-1.fc17 nepomukshell-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.8.0-1.fc17 nepomukshell-0.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: nepomukshell = 0.8.0-1.fc17 nepomukshell(x86-64) = 0.8.0-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://download.kde.org/unstable/nepomuk/nepomukshell-0.8.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a5d9e0840f927bdf6743b08c65456373de4374588a7fd78b710e000790c8c715 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5d9e0840f927bdf6743b08c65456373de4374588a7fd78b710e000790c8c715 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 868838
Jan: I think using fedora-review only makes sense when you also fill out the resulting form a bit. :) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is no longer necessary. License seems to be GPLv3+: $ licensecheck -r * ... resourcepropertymodel.cpp: GPL resourcepropertymodel.h: GPL (v2 or later) resourcequerywidget.cpp: GPL resourcequerywidget.h: GPL resourceview.cpp: GPL resourceview.h: GPL (v2 or later) settings/resourcebrowsersettingspage.h: GPL sparqlsyntaxhighlighter.cpp: GPL (v3 or later) sparqlsyntaxhighlighter.h: GPL (v3 or later) Mark as %doc: COPYING, AUTHORS, ChangeLog BR cmake I think it should be "and" not "end" in the summary.
Spec URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomukshell.spec SRPM URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc18.src.rpm * Tue Oct 23 2012 Dan Vrátil <dvratil@redhat.com> - 0.8.0-2 - Use KDE macros - Add AUTHORS, COPYING and ChangeLog to documentation - Fixed license and typo in summary - Removed CMake version and "rm -rf $BUILD_ROOT"
I see no problem. Rpmlint and fedora-review didn't show any serious problem.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nepomukshell Short Description: Debugging and maintenance tool for Nepomuk Owners: dvratil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc18
nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc17
nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
nepomukshell-0.8.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.