[Bug 1153302] Review Request: tilda - A Gtk based drop down terminal for Linux and Unix

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153302



--- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch at gmail.com> ---
I performed the review, there are some things to fix. Review below.

Greetings,
Christian


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
  contains icons.
  Note: icons in tilda
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache


====> Please have a look at this! 


- 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/tilda
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names

====> OK as the old package is retired

===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or
     later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright*
     LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 1 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/packaging/1153302-tilda/licensecheck.txt

====> GPLV2+ is the correct license

[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed

====> You can remove this from spec

[-]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 40960 bytes in 5 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 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]: 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 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0:
     https://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/archive#/tilda_1.2.orig.tar.gz
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags

====> I discussed this with hannes, the tar provided by github is a bit bad,
hannes added a comment in spec how he created the tar from git.

Correct URI would be
https://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/archive/tilda-%{version}.tar.gz
which returns tilda-tilda-%{version} then. I analyzed it a bit more in detail,
just
call %setup with the matching -n and the default tar works


[x]: 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.

====> 1.2.1 was released yesterday

[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.
[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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tilda-1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          tilda-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
tilda.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tilda/COPYING
tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda
tilda.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
tilda.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
tilda.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 15)
tilda.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/archive#/tilda_1.2.orig.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.


====> Please report the incorrect FSF address to upstream. This is all you have
to do for now.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint tilda
tilda.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tilda/COPYING
tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

====> Same here

Requires
--------
tilda (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libconfuse.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libvte2_90.so.9()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
tilda:
    application()
    application(tilda.desktop)
    tilda
    tilda(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1153302
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component