[Bug 1202848] Review Request: libaccounts-qt5 - Accounts framework Qt 5 bindings

Tue Mar 17 19:20:30 UTC 2015

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202848

Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |mario.blaettermann at gmail.co
                   |                            |m
           Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mario.blaettermann at gmail.co
                   |                            |m
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann at gmail.com> ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
libaccounts-qt5.src: I: checking
libaccounts-qt5.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/accounts-sso/
(timeout 10 seconds)
libaccounts-qt5.src: W: invalid-url Source0: accounts-qt-1.13.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

libaccounts-qt5.x86_64: I: checking
libaccounts-qt5.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/accounts-sso/
(timeout 10 seconds)
libaccounts-qt5-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
libaccounts-qt5-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://code.google.com/p/accounts-sso/ (timeout 10 seconds)
libaccounts-qt5-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/accounts-qt-1.13/Accounts/.moc
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

libaccounts-qt5-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/accounts-qt-1.13/Accounts/.moc
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

libaccounts-qt5-devel.x86_64: I: checking
libaccounts-qt5-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://code.google.com/p/accounts-sso/ (timeout 10 seconds)
libaccounts-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

libaccounts-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

libaccounts-qt5-doc.x86_64: I: checking
libaccounts-qt5-doc.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C User and developer
documentation for libaccounts-qt5.
Summary ends with a dot.

libaccounts-qt5-doc.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://code.google.com/p/accounts-sso/ (timeout 10 seconds)
libaccounts-qt5.spec: I: checking
libaccounts-qt5.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: accounts-qt-1.13.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Not really important issues. However, the Google Drive stuff is very
annoying...  doesn't matter, it's not blamed to you ;) The
only-non-binary-in-usr-lib warning is false positive, and the period at the end
of the summary -- it is rather cosmetic, but please remove it to make rpmlint
happy.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
    LGPLv2+
[x] MUST: 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 must be included in %license.

Note: "%doc COPYING" is obsolete, use "%license COPYING" instead. Doesn't
matter if rpmlint complains about missing documentation.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
    $ sha256sum *
    9033891b7f122f578d0ccf22b0e31fc478e644e97f24e7ad8fb54ef0a5da30f0 
accounts-qt-1.13.tar.bz2
    9033891b7f122f578d0ccf22b0e31fc478e644e97f24e7ad8fb54ef0a5da30f0 
accounts-qt-1.13.tar.bz2.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway).
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

Please remove the superfluous dots and fix the %license thing, that's all.

-- 
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