Description: A combination of stop-watch, diary, consultant billing system, and project manager. Gnotime allows you to track the amount of time you spend on a task, associate a memo with it, set a billing rate, print an invoice, as well as track the status of other projects. Some people may remember Gnotime in its previous incarnations as GTT (Gnome Time Tracker) when it was part of the Gnome Utils package. It has been split out, renamed, and greatly enhanced since then. SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime.spec SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime-2.4.1-1.fc19.src.rpm This is an un-retirement re-review, this was dropped in Fedora 15. This requires compat-gtkhtml314.
Don't we need compat-gtkhtml314 as a Requires in the spec?
No, it's in BuildRequires, and RPM will pick up the solib. It's better to let RPM handle Requires whenever possible. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
* BuildRoot not needed since F10 [0] * %clean section isn't needed since F13 [1] * %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/ * %make_install instead of make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT [2] * %defattr isn't needed since rpm 4.4 [3] [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
Fixed. SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime-2.4.1-2.fc19.src.rpm SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime.spec
This builds fine with qof-devel versions prior to 0.8. I still need to test that it runs on the older qof-devel (on F19), but if it does I suggest that we remove the ">= 0.8" from the qof-devel BuildRequires.
Just verified that gnotime 2.4.1 runs just fine with qof 0.7.5. The qof version requirement should be removed so that gnotime can build and run on F19.
SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime-2.4.1-3.fc19.src.rpm SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime.spec Unversioned.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - GConf schemas are properly installed Note: gconf file(s) in gnotime See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GConf - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/omf/gnotime See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in gnotime See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gnotime See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names - I can wrong w/ license. You use GPLv2+. Can we use this license for GPLv3? - You should use parallel make. use %{?_smp_mflags} for make - For patches please link to bugreports, etc. in spec as comment - I see make check are present, but you not use it. - Are you informed upstream for incorrect-fsf-address ? ===== 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. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: 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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/brain/985917-gnotime/licensecheck.txt [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: 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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 6 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2007040 bytes in /usr/share 2007040 gnotime-2.4.1-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm [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: gnotime-2.4.1-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm gnotime.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnotime.schemas gnotime.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnotime/README gnotime.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnotime/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gnotime gnotime.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnotime.schemas gnotime.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnotime/README gnotime.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnotime/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gnotime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh GConf2 libICE.so.6()(64bit) libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXss.so.1()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit) libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libenchant.so.1()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgc.so.1()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtkhtml-3.14.so.19()(64bit) libguile-2.0.so.22()(64bit) libguile-2.0.so.22(GUILE_2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libqof.so.2()(64bit) libqof.so.2(LIBQOF_0.8.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) scrollkeeper Provides -------- gnotime: gnotime gnotime(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sf.net/gttr/gnotime-2.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b25a9d94cdb7e08c18f115eddddd32a6e23834416355fcaed852260b6b2f6410 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b25a9d94cdb7e08c18f115eddddd32a6e23834416355fcaed852260b6b2f6410 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 985917
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8) > - Package do not use a name that already exist > Note: A package already exist with this name, please check > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gnotime That is this package. We're bringing it back to life. > - I can wrong w/ license. You use GPLv2+. Can we use this license for GPLv3? Probably, can you attach the licensecheck output so we can review it? > - Are you informed upstream for incorrect-fsf-address ? We can file a bug report for this and other license issues upstream.
Created attachment 789542 [details] licensecheck (In reply to Peter Ajamian from comment #9) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8) > > - Package do not use a name that already exist > > Note: A package already exist with this name, please check > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gnotime > > That is this package. We're bringing it back to life. > > > - I can wrong w/ license. You use GPLv2+. Can we use this license for GPLv3? > > Probably, can you attach the licensecheck output so we can review it? Attached. > > > - Are you informed upstream for incorrect-fsf-address ? > > We can file a bug report for this and other license issues upstream.
Based on what I see either GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ is correct.
Fixed GCOnf, icon cache, parallel make, and dropped the abi-version patch. I left the license, and the checks refer to a file that doesn't exist. Filed upstream bug for fsf address. https://sourceforge.net/p/gttr/bugs/97/ SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime-2.4.1-4.fc19.src.rpm SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnotime/gnotime.spec
Fixed desktop file and gconf schemas, same URLs.
new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnotime.spec new SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnotime-2.4.1-5.fc19.src.rpm koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5846213 All right! Lets roll! P.S. feel free add me to maintainers
Sounds good, thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gnotime Short Description: Tracks and reports time spent Owners: limb ignatenkobrain Branches: f20 f19 f18 InitialCC:
Whoops, should be change, unretiring. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gnotime New Branches: f20 f19 f18 Owners: limb ignatenkobrain InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Filed trac to unblock. Imported into rawhide and f20. Will do f19 and f18 once compat-gtkhtml314 hits stable.
Unblocked, build in rawhide and f20. Imported into git for f19 and f18 but not built.
Not building for f18, needs guile > 2.0.
gnotime-2.4.1-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnotime-2.4.1-5.fc19
I wouldn't loose any hair over it not building in F18. I doubt it's worth chasing down for the few months that F18 has left. If anyone really wants it I still have 2.3.0 in my repo for F18 (what you've based the current build on).
gnotime-2.4.1-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
gnotime-2.4.1-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.