[Bug 858062] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt - Qt5 for Windows - QtActiveQt component
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jun 22 14:29:19 UTC 2015
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858062
Sandro Mani <manisandro at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |manisandro at gmail.com
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |manisandro at gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Sandro Mani <manisandro at gmail.com> ---
Full review below, only some small issues:
* Use %license
* There are a number of BSD licensed sources
* Some macro-in-comment warnings
* Homepage is now http://www.qt.io
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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 %license.
Note: License file LICENSE.FDL is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 37
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sandro/Desktop/858062-mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
=> BSD missing
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 8 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]: 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 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mingw32-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
mingw64-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
mingw64-qt5-qtactiveqt.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://qt-project.org/
<urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
mingw32-qt5-qtactiveqt.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://qt-project.org/
<urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
--------
mingw64-qt5-qtactiveqt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
mingw64(advapi32.dll)
mingw64(gdi32.dll)
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64(ole32.dll)
mingw64(oleaut32.dll)
mingw64(qt5core.dll)
mingw64(qt5gui.dll)
mingw64(qt5printsupport.dll)
mingw64(qt5widgets.dll)
mingw64(user32.dll)
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem
mingw64-pkg-config
mingw32-qt5-qtactiveqt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
mingw32(advapi32.dll)
mingw32(gdi32.dll)
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll)
mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(ole32.dll)
mingw32(oleaut32.dll)
mingw32(qt5core.dll)
mingw32(qt5gui.dll)
mingw32(qt5printsupport.dll)
mingw32(qt5widgets.dll)
mingw32(user32.dll)
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem
mingw32-pkg-config
Provides
--------
mingw64-qt5-qtactiveqt:
mingw64-qt5-qtactiveqt
mingw32-qt5-qtactiveqt:
mingw32-qt5-qtactiveqt
Source checksums
----------------
http://download.qt-project.org/official_releases/qt/5.4/5.4.1/submodules/qtactiveqt-opensource-src-5.4.1.tar.xz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7d7dd2e3f0c704a2769a8c6ffa7f2c0168d8a4432202a2e9cbd6b10437232891
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7d7dd2e3f0c704a2769a8c6ffa7f2c0168d8a4432202a2e9cbd6b10437232891
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 858062
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JtcoI8MbQE&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the mingw
mailing list