Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/steadyflow/steadyflow.spec RPMS URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/steadyflow/steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: GTK+ based download manager that aims for minimalism, ease of use, and a clean, malleable code base. It should be easy to control, whether from the GUI, command line, or D-Bus Fedora Account System Username: echevemaster rpmlint out: rpmlint -v steadyflow.spec steadyflow.spec: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow/trunk/0.2.0/+download/steadyflow-0.2.0.tar.xz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm steadyflow.src: I: checking steadyflow.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow (timeout 10 seconds) steadyflow.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow/trunk/0.2.0/+download/steadyflow-0.2.0.tar.xz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm steadyflow.x86_64: I: checking steadyflow.x86_64: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v steadyflow-debuginfo-0.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm steadyflow-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking steadyflow-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Tested on Koji: rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4748011 f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4748018 f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4748043
After a first review i found some minor issues about License field: License field declares GPLv3 which means GPLv3 only, i'm not 100% sure upstream intends this as there no explicit mention. Also found and icon being distributed after GPL license without version specification. Please try to contact upstream and let them know those things, maybe they can declare more explicitly legal affairs in the README file.
Hi Guillermo: I asked upstream but still I've not response [1]. That was 13 days ago. But now I do some assumptions: - The license in Debian is GPLv3+ [2], As additional data, the debian's packager is the same developer of the application - I guess the icon should be under the same license [1] https://answers.launchpad.net/steadyflow/+question/218099 [2] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/steadyflow/steadyflow_0.2.0-1/steadyflow.copyright Regards -
Ok, ill take the assumptions on the legal side and ... Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: %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. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: 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. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. ---------- APPROVED ----------
Thanks Guillermo: New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: steadyflow Short Description: Simple download manager for GNOME Owners: echevemaster Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17
steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc18
steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.