Bug 957520 - Review Request: rf - read feeds from any source
Summary: Review Request: rf - read feeds from any source
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Antonio T. (sagitter)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-04-28 17:01 UTC by Deleted Account
Modified: 2013-06-29 18:39 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rf-0.4.18-2.fc19
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-06-27 01:58:21 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
anto.trande: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Deleted Account 2013-04-28 17:01:30 UTC
Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf.spec
SRPM URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf-0.4.12-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: command line scriptable feed reader with default feeds ( http://code.google.com/p/readfeed )
Fedora Account System Username: juanmabc

Comment 1 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-05-01 14:20:22 UTC
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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Texinfo files are properly installed
     Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in rf
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v3 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/sagitter/957520-rf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.

--> Your package needs just

BuildRequires:       xmlstarlet
Requires:            curl
Requires:            lynx
Requires(post):      info
Requires(preun):     info

bash, sed, ...  can be omitted.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2


[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: 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
[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: No rpmlint messages.

===== 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.

--> A new release results available: https://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.16.tar.bz2

[-]: 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]: 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.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX is a working URL.

--> Source link is wrong.
https://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.12.tar.bz2

[-]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rf-0.4.12-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rf
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
rf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/env
    bash
    coreutils
    curl
    gawk
    info
    lynx
    sed
    util-linux
    xmlstarlet



Provides
--------
rf:
    rf



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.12.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 65e72802aff0db655704144a7b0f954455dad56092e4a23ca07e94bd6ae28c10
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65e72802aff0db655704144a7b0f954455dad56092e4a23ca07e94bd6ae28c10


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 957520

Comment 2 Deleted Account 2013-05-01 20:53:02 UTC
Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf.spec
SRPM URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf-0.4.16-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: command line scriptable feed reader with default feeds ( http://code.google.com/p/readfeed )
Fedora Account System Username: juanmabc

*** --> Your package needs just

BuildRequires:       xmlstarlet
Requires:            curl
Requires:            lynx
Requires(post):      info
Requires(preun):     info

bash, sed, ...  can be omitted.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2

***:
Quoting: "Exceptions:There is no need to include the following packages or their dependencies as *BuildRequires* because they would occur too often. These 
packages are considered the minimum build environment."

I use them in *Requires*, which is completely different and has no exceptions. Note that BuildRequires xmlstarlet i assume is a typo, since there is no BuildRequire dependency for it, and the fact that has no BuildRequires is precissely because of the Exceptions. Requires are what is needed at runtime, BuildRequires at compile time.


*** --> A new release results available: https://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.16.tar.bz2

***: This is correct and fixed.


*** --> Source link is wrong.
https://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.12.tar.bz2

***: googlecode happens to be really like this on fedora scripts, the link is valid (as you can see clicking) and the issue is known, packages get approved with this complain, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890733#c3 , quoting: "The download URL is valid, the tarball is downloadable. That's a common problem with Googlecode stuff."

Thanks for the interest.

Comment 3 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-05-01 21:23:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf-0.4.16-1.fc18.src.rpm
> Description: command line scriptable feed reader with default feeds (
> http://code.google.com/p/readfeed )
> Fedora Account System Username: juanmabc
> 
> *** --> Your package needs just
> 
> BuildRequires:       xmlstarlet
> Requires:            curl
> Requires:            lynx
> Requires(post):      info
> Requires(preun):     info
> 
> bash, sed, ...  can be omitted.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
> 
> ***:
> Quoting: "Exceptions:There is no need to include the following packages or
> their dependencies as *BuildRequires* because they would occur too often.
> These 
> packages are considered the minimum build environment."
> 
> I use them in *Requires*, which is completely different and has no
> exceptions. Note that BuildRequires xmlstarlet i assume is a typo, since
> there is no BuildRequire dependency for it, and the fact that has no
> BuildRequires is precissely because of the Exceptions. Requires are what is
> needed at runtime, BuildRequires at compile time.
> 

Gee whiz! I'm sorry, I have mixed them. :P

I think your package can be approved.

Comment 4 Deleted Account 2013-06-15 13:57:04 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rf
Short Description: Read feeds from any source
Owners: juanmabc
Branches: f17 f18 f19
InitialCC:

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-06-15 16:18:02 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 10:46:06 UTC
rf-0.4.18-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rf-0.4.18-1.fc19

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 11:21:03 UTC
rf-0.4.18-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rf-0.4.18-2.fc19

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 11:21:42 UTC
rf-0.4.18-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rf-0.4.18-2.fc18

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 11:22:19 UTC
rf-0.4.18-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rf-0.4.18-2.fc17

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 19:22:09 UTC
rf-0.4.18-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-06-27 01:58:21 UTC
rf-0.4.18-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-06-27 01:58:43 UTC
rf-0.4.18-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-06-29 18:39:56 UTC
rf-0.4.18-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.