Spec URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/elementary.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/elementary-1.7.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Elementary is a widget set. It is a new-style of widget set much more canvas object based than anything else. Fedora Account System Username: sundaram
Now that we have embryo on rawhide please update this to 1.7.7
Waiting on Wolfgang to return from holiday. In the process of updating the spec and SRPM for his review.
The spec file needs to be work! 1. rpmlint issue. elementary.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so elementary_testql.so see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#invalid-soname Is this a privat libary which is only needed by the package or a public libary? I suggest to ask Rex for help. 2. - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in elementary See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache 3. - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. 4. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: elementary-1.7.4/configure.ac:55 You should inform upstream about this. 5. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint elementary elementary-devel elementary.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so elementary_testql.so elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/libedbus.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/libefreet_mime.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/libefreet_trash.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/libeet.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/librt.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/libpthread.so.0 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so /lib64/libecore_evas.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.4 /lib64/librt.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.4 /lib64/libecore_fb.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.4 /lib64/libecore_sdl.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.4 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 elementary.x86_64: W: no-documentation elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_test elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_testql elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 19 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' The unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning can be easy fixed. Add sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool after the configure call. 6. Isa and release tag is missing in -devel subpackage. Use Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency 7. Don't own %{_libdir}/edje. This directory is already owned by edje.
Updated: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary-1.7.8-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Elementary is a widget set. It is a new-style of widget set much more canvas object based than anything else.
In regards to: elementary-devel.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/elementary_testql.so elementary_testql.so Posed the question to upstream. Should not block the review.
It seems like edje-utils is BuildRequires to finish build.
Updated: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary-1.7.8-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Elementary is a widget set. It is a new-style of widget set much more canvas object based than anything else. Hi Wolfgang, I have removed the file in question from the package. It is useless. Spoke with upstream about it. For the record it is a private shared object that wouldn't be used by other packages. Regardless of that I have removed the file from the package. $ rpmlint elementary-1.7.8-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_testql elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/elementary_test.desktop elementary_test 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint elementary-devel-1.7.8-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Please continue the review.
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #6) > It seems like edje-utils is BuildRequires to finish build. What makes you think that?
Please fix this first! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=eio Eio creates a file conflict and eio is an dependency of elementry! This is also mentioned in you rel-eng ticket.
# ['/usr/bin/yum-builddep', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root///builddir/build/SRPMS/elementary-1.7.8-2.fc21.src.rpm'] Getting requirements for elementary-1.7.8-2.fc21.src --> Already installed : desktop-file-utils-0.22-1.fc21.x86_64 --> 1:doxygen-1.8.4-4.fc20.x86_64 --> e_dbus-devel-1.7.8-1.fc21.x86_64 --> ecore-devel-1.7.8-3.fc21.x86_64 --> edje-devel-1.7.8-3.fc21.x86_64 --> eet-devel-1.7.8-3.fc21.x86_64 --> eeze-devel-1.7.8-2.fc20.x86_64 --> efreet-devel-1.7.8-3.fc21.x86_64 --> eio-devel-1.7.8-2.fc21.x86_64 --> embryo-devel-1.7.8-3.fc21.x86_64 --> emotion-devel-1.7.8-8.fc21.x86_64 --> evas-devel-1.7.8-1.fc21.x86_64 --> libeina-devel-1.7.8-1.fc20.x86_64 Error: Kein Paket gefunden für evas_generic_loaders Dan -1 !!! Why did you didn't test a package before you ask for a review? Sorry, this is a minimal requirement what i expected from a person who want's to be a provent packager.
(In reply to Dan Mashal from comment #8) > (In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #6) > > It seems like edje-utils is BuildRequires to finish build. > > What makes you think that? Because on my build, it asked for /usr/lib64/edje/utils/epp, which is in edje-utils
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #11) > (In reply to Dan Mashal from comment #8) > > (In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #6) > > > It seems like edje-utils is BuildRequires to finish build. > > > > What makes you think that? > > Because on my build, it asked for /usr/lib64/edje/utils/epp, which is in > edje-utils Thanks.
Updated: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary-1.7.8-3.fc21.src.rpm Description: Elementary is a widget set. It is a new-style of widget set much more canvas object based than anything else. Successful builds on F20 and Rawhide here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5989369 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5989360
Package needs work ! 1. lisence issue COPYING says that LGPLv2+ is used. lisencescheck pointed to GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elementary-1.7.8/ltmain.sh This i wrong because GPLv2+ comes from libtool which generate ltmain.sh. Why do you use BSD as lisence? 2. - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in elementary See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache Please use icon-cache scriptlets! 3. elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/elementary_test.desktop elementary_test Please remove this desktop file! 4. Pls own directory. %{_libdir}/edje/modules/elm is unowned! Note, %{_libdir}/edje/modules is owned by emotion. 5. You did reomove elementary_testql.so in %install section, but the package provide a binary %{_bindir}/elementary_testql , i'm pretty shure executing this binary will fail. Please fix this with removing the binary too or don't remove the libary. 6. Easy to fix rpmlint warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint elementary elementary-devel elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/librt.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/libecore_fb.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/libecore_sdl.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_testql elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/elementary_test.desktop elementary_test elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency One fix for packages which use libtool is to put this in your %build section after the %configure call: sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool
Hmm, some of this points are already mentioned in comment 3 by me :-/
Updated: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/elementary-1.7.8-4.fc19.src.rpm Description: Elementary is a widget set. It is a new-style of widget set much more canvas object based than anything else.
APPROVED ! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 545 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rave/891282-elementary/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/edje, /usr/lib64/edje/modules [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/edje/modules, /usr/lib64/edje [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in elementary [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: 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 or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5611520 bytes in /usr/share [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: elementary-1.7.8-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm elementary-devel-1.7.8-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm elementary-1.7.8-4.fc21.src.rpm elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint elementary elementary-devel elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/librt.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/libecore_fb.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/libecore_sdl.so.1 elementary.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libelementary.so.1.7.8 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_testql elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/elementary_test.desktop elementary_test elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- elementary (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libecore.so.1()(64bit) libecore_con.so.1()(64bit) libecore_evas.so.1()(64bit) libecore_fb.so.1()(64bit) libecore_file.so.1()(64bit) libecore_imf.so.1()(64bit) libecore_sdl.so.1()(64bit) libecore_x.so.1()(64bit) libedbus.so.1()(64bit) libedje.so.1()(64bit) libeet.so.1()(64bit) libefreet.so.1()(64bit) libefreet_mime.so.1()(64bit) libefreet_trash.so.1()(64bit) libeina.so.1()(64bit) libeio.so.1()(64bit) libelementary.so.1()(64bit) libemotion.so.1()(64bit) libevas.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) elementary-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config elementary(x86-64) libelementary.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(ecore) pkgconfig(ecore-con) pkgconfig(ecore-evas) pkgconfig(ecore-fb) pkgconfig(ecore-file) pkgconfig(ecore-imf) pkgconfig(ecore-sdl) pkgconfig(ecore-x) pkgconfig(edbus) pkgconfig(edje) pkgconfig(eet) pkgconfig(efreet) pkgconfig(efreet-mime) pkgconfig(efreet-trash) pkgconfig(eina) pkgconfig(eio) pkgconfig(emotion) pkgconfig(evas) Provides -------- elementary: elementary elementary(x86-64) libelementary.so.1()(64bit) elementary-devel: elementary-devel elementary-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(elementary) Unversioned so-files -------------------- elementary: /usr/lib64/edje/modules/elm/linux-gnu-x86_64-1.0.0/module.so elementary: /usr/lib64/elementary/modules/access_output/linux-gnu-x86_64-1.7.8/module.so elementary: /usr/lib64/elementary/modules/datetime_input_ctxpopup/linux-gnu-x86_64-1.7.8/module.so elementary: /usr/lib64/elementary/modules/test_entry/linux-gnu-x86_64-1.7.8/module.so elementary: /usr/lib64/elementary/modules/test_map/linux-gnu-x86_64-1.7.8/module.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.enlightenment.org/releases/elementary-1.7.8.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4b5911ff736157c8271fc83e5176963cbf505aedef26469eb74caf175ae83b53 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b5911ff736157c8271fc83e5176963cbf505aedef26469eb74caf175ae83b53 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 891282 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
I don't know why rpmlint bother for elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/elementary_test.desktop elementary_test This file doesn't exits anymore in resulting rpm.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: elementary Short Description: Basic widget set that is easy to use based on EFL Owners: vicodan sundaram spot Branches: f19 f20
> I don't know why rpmlint bother for > elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications > /elementary_test.desktop elementary_test > > This file doesn't exits anymore in resulting rpm. It doesn't do that. It certainly doesn't report something like that for a file that isn't included in the build results anymore. Are you sure you've run "fedora-review -b 891282" successfully?
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #20) > > I don't know why rpmlint bother for > > elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications > > /elementary_test.desktop elementary_test > > > > This file doesn't exits anymore in resulting rpm. > > It doesn't do that. It certainly doesn't report something like that for a > file that isn't included in the build results anymore. Are you sure you've > run "fedora-review -b 891282" successfully? What a question......, the reason is that the old unpacked rpm from 1.7.8-3 version was in my mock chroot. Why you never run fedora-review for yourself for confirming the results? This could answered your question ;)
> the reason is that the old unpacked rpm from 1.7.8-3 version was in my > mock chroot. The report you've included in this ticket refers to 1.7.8-4 however in the rpmlint section. Perhaps the packages have been updated silently after the approval? $ rpm -qpi elementary-1.7.8-4.fc19.src.rpm |grep 'Build Date' Build Date : Sat 28 Sep 2013 03:58:58 CEST That's quite newer than the approval on Fri 27th. > Why you never run fedora-review for yourself for confirming the results? I *have* run it before adding comment 20, and it retrieves the latest spec file and src.rpm from the ticket. The problem is not reproducible. Rpmlint ------- Checking: elementary-1.7.8-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm elementary-devel-1.7.8-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm elementary-1.7.8-4.fc20.src.rpm elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint elementary elementary-devel elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #22) > > the reason is that the old unpacked rpm from 1.7.8-3 version was in my > > mock chroot. > > The report you've included in this ticket refers to 1.7.8-4 however in the > rpmlint section. Perhaps the packages have been updated silently after the > approval? Again, i did first run fedora-review-tool with 1.7.8-3 and forgot to remove /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root I result running fedora-review-tool with 1.7.8-4 in the same chroot shows rpmlint issues from un-packed 1.7.8-3 rpm. After deleting /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root i got this results. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint elementary elementary-devel elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_run elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_config elementary.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elementary_quicklaunch elementary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Did you never run in this fedora-review issue with another package?
Questions: 1) Why doesn't rpmlint mention the old packages? In the fedora-review output you've posted in comment 17, it only referred to | Rpmlint | ------- | Checking: elementary-1.7.8-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm | elementary-devel-1.7.8-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm | elementary-1.7.8-4.fc21.src.rpm and | Rpmlint (installed packages) 2) Does it "install" the new builds without updating/replacing the old builds? 3) The src.rpm been updated since the approval. The spec file on Sep 28th 03:46, the src.rpm has been rebuilt 12 minutes later. What has been changed in the package? > Did you never run in this fedora-review issue with another package? No.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #24) > Questions: > > 1) Why doesn't rpmlint mention the old packages? In the fedora-review output > you've posted in comment 17, it only referred to Because in mock build dir was a left over from the former review /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/elementary-1.7.8-3.fc19.src.rpm This is easy to test, first review 1.7.8-3 and than review 1.7.8-4 without removing /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root. I'm still wondering that you never know about this effect ;)
It's _not_ reproducible here. When I run "fedora-review -b 891282", it removes old packages from /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/RPMS. And "mock --chroot 'rpm -qa elem\*'" also lists only the 1.7.8-4.fc20 builds as installed. Further, you haven't explained why rpmlint would examine _old_ rpms without printing their names. I think you are mistaken about what has happened.
It's no problem for me to reproduce the fedora-review-tool/mock issue , if i review both srpm's as local packages with fedora-review -v -r -n elementary -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 without deleting /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ . Same results ;)
Wolfgang: this is perhaps not the place to fix a possible fedora-review bug. I would appreciate if you filed a bug against fedora-review for this so we can sort it out (at https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/).
https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/230 The reason is that fedora-review does not "update" already installed older builds of the package in the Mock chroot. See question 2 in comment 24. The answer to that question is "no". Steps to reproduce: 1) Run mock --init 2) Run fedora-review for the older src.rpm: ... INFO: installing package(s): /home/personal_tmp/reviews/elementary/elementary/results/elementary-1.7.8-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm /home/personal_tmp/reviews/elementary/elementary/results/elementary-devel-1.7.8-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm ... 3) Run fedora-review for the newer src.rpm: ... DEBUG: Running check: CheckPackageInstalls DEBUG: Avoiding init of working mock root INFO: Installing built package(s) DEBUG: is_installed: Tested elementary, result: 0 DEBUG: Skipping already installed: elementary DEBUG: is_installed: Tested elementary-devel, result: 0 DEBUG: Skipping already installed: elementary-devel DEBUG: CheckPackageInstalls completed: 1.142 seconds DEBUG: Running check: CheckRpmlintInstalled DEBUG: is_installed: Tested rpmlint, result: 0 DEBUG: Skipping already installed: rpmlint ... So, it tests the old builds.
es hat zwar gedauert....satte 9 post später.....aber ich habe den Groschen auch fallen gehört.
Is that supposed to be funny? First you write that you don't know why rpmlint reports something that's not included in the built rpms anymore (comment 18)? Shortly after you wonder why I didn't knew about such a bug? A bit later you claim you've seen it before. It would have been much more productive to report it instead of treating it like a known defect, which everybody should be aware of. I don't run fedora-review too often with an unclean mock root, at most once per review for some of its valuable checks (e.g. licensing related).
I don't know why you don't know a well known issue. If you have a prob with me personal ping me on irc (Klar Text reden). Otherwise don't waste my time anymore.
comment 18: > I don't know why rpmlint bother for > elementary.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications > /elementary_test.desktop elementary_test > > This file doesn't exits anymore in resulting rpm. comment 32: > I don't know why you don't know a well known issue. > If you have a prob with me personal ping me on irc (Klar Text reden). Dunno what would change then. It would be a waste of time, wouldn't it?
You bore me! Stop spamming this review request!
(In reply to Wolfgang Ulbrich from comment #30) > es hat zwar gedauert....satte 9 post später.....aber ich habe den Groschen > auch fallen gehört. The language used here is English. I can actually understand that, but it's still rude trying to be private this way.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
elementary-1.7.8-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/elementary-1.7.8-4.fc20
elementary-1.7.8-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/elementary-1.7.8-4.fc19
elementary-1.7.8-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
elementary-1.7.8-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
elementary-1.7.8-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.