Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/Lifeograph/lifeograph.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/Lifeograph/lifeograph-0.11.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Lifeograph is a diary program to take personal notes on life. It has all essential functionality expected in a diary program and strives to have a clean and streamlined user interface. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha Additional info: [asinha@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ./lifeograph.spec lifeograph.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %{optflags} lifeograph.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lifeograph ./lifeograph.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{optflags} 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. An f19 x86_64 rpm can be found here: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/Lifeograph/lifeograph-0.11.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm It's a deprecated package: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/lifeograph
SRPMs updated. The macro in comment warnings are now gone.
and I'll review this one
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Code sems to be GPLv3+ rather than GPLv3 at a quick glance. Or is there indeed something in the sources which requires plain GPLv3? - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file in lifeograph contains MimeType entry, needs to update desktop-database See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database - The sed scripts could (and should) be simplified and sanitized. "s|\(Categories=Utility\)|\1;| -> /^Ĉategories/s/$/;/ s|\(MimeType=application/x-lifeographdiary\)|\1;| -> /^MimeType/s/$/;/ These two are applied to the same file making the backup useless. Either merge the two commands to one using -e, or just drop the backup. sed -ibackup "81,86 d" wscript -> something else. This will fail silently for just an added blank line somewhere. Matching two regex'es or so seems much safer. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/leamas/tmp/FedoraReview/973868-lifeograph/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 when required Note: icons in lifeograph [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 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 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lifeograph-0.11.1-1.fc18.i686.rpm lifeograph.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lifeograph 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint lifeograph lifeograph.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lifeograph 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- lifeograph (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0 libatkmm-1.6.so.1 libc.so.6 libcairo-gobject.so.2 libcairo.so.2 libcairomm-1.0.so.1 libenchant.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcrypt.so.11 libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2) libgdk-3.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgdkmm-3.0.so.1 libgio-2.0.so.0 libgiomm-2.4.so.1 libglib-2.0.so.0 libglibmm-2.4.so.1 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-3.so.0 libgtkmm-3.0.so.1 libm.so.6 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangomm-1.4.so.1 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libsigc-2.0.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- lifeograph: lifeograph lifeograph(x86-32) mimehandler(application/x-lifeographdiary) Source checksums ---------------- https://launchpad.net/lifeograph/trunk/0.11.1/+download/lifeograph-0.11.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 524727159e50d5b1f5adc4574a8aeda729e96ef25b227addd2b08eaf4971b930 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 524727159e50d5b1f5adc4574a8aeda729e96ef25b227addd2b08eaf4971b930
Actually, instead of the last sed-script I would suggest using a patch; it seems like a better alternative for this kind of fix.
Thanks for the review! Updated: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/Lifeograph/lifeograph.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/Lifeograph/lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc20.src.rpm * Sat Jun 15 2013 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> 0.11.1-2 - Replace sed with patch - Update desktop database - Bug# 973868 Warm regards, Ankur
Ouch... seems that I wasn't clear about the sed issues... :( The original sed patching of the desktop file was basically fine IMHO, besides that the was expressions needlessly complicated and the backup useless. My idea was to replace these with something like sed -i -e '/^Ĉategories/s/$/;/' -e /^MimeType/s/$/;/ lifeograph.desktop or so (nop patch here required, but doessn't, hjurt either, I guess) Mhy real concerns is the last expresseion sed -ibackup "81,86 d" wscript. This is just too vulnerable to even whitespace changes, and should be replaced with a patch IMHO. Sorry for the mess.
Hi Alec! My bad! I knew what you meant but completely forgot the second sed command! I've replaced both sed commands with patches, and commented the patches too. I'll try sending the wscript patch upstream. Their wscript overrides all flags so I'm not sure how other distributions are building this app. Updated spec/srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/Lifeograph/lifeograph.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/Lifeograph/lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc20.src.rpm I haven't bumped the release for this change. (The same changelog applies) Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur
Hi Ankur! You're welcome! Looks good. *** Approved
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lifeograph Short Description: A diary program Owners: ankursinha Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Unretired, please take ownership in pkgdb and submit a Package Change request for additional branches.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: lifeograph New Branches: f18 f19 Owners: ankursinha InitialCC: Taken ownership. Thanks.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc18
lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc19
lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
lifeograph-0.11.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.