https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005906
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version| |kde-settings-20-1.fc20
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2013-09-17 22:19:33
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
kde-settings-20-1.fc20, schroedinger-cat-kde-theme-18.91.6-2.fc20,
heisenbug-kde-theme-19.90.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
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=5ng4ocTuFz&a=cc_unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro
| |ject.org)
--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues ======
* FHS: Shouldn't plugins go to /lib? Is that doable?
* Remove shell scripts from icons folder
===== 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
Still not quite sure about this one. Shouldn't plugins go to /lib? Is that
doable?
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
knotter-data requires bash, as it contains some scripts no longer needed.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in knotter-
data
Cannot be %{?_isa} on noarch.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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 (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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: knotter-0.9.4-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm
knotter-data-0.9.4-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
knotter-0.9.4-3.fc18.src.rpm
knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization
knotter.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Knotter
knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knotworks -> notworks,
k notworks, knot works
knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
knotter-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
knotter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization
knotter.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Knotter
knotter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knotworks -> notworks, k
notworks, knot works
knotter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint knotter-data knotter
knotter-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization
knotter.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Knotter
knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knotworks -> notworks,
k notworks, knot works
knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
knotter-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
knotter
knotter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
knotter-data
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libQtScript.so.4()(64bit)
libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit)
libQtXml.so.4()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
knotter-data:
knotter-data
knotter:
knotter
knotter(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/knotter/0.9/knotter-0.9.4.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
5e5fbda3b051f3724f9aa6e5c1223626f4a8147c6f4ce8a7de245780dba0716b
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
5e5fbda3b051f3724f9aa6e5c1223626f4a8147c6f4ce8a7de245780dba0716b
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (eaf16cd) last change: 2013-05-30
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 996209
Buildroot used: fedora-18-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.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=22AmIJEj5I&a=cc_unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Benedikt Schäfer <ib54003(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro |
|ject.org) |
|needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro |
|ject.org) |
--- Comment #7 from Benedikt Schäfer <ib54003(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #6)
> Benedikt, if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask.
Sorry, i was very very busy at the last time.
--
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=1mr332rGsQ&a=cc_unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006041
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version| |heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90
| |.0-1.fc20
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2013-09-13 23:09:52
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc20, desktop-backgrounds-20.0.0-1.fc20 has
been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.
--
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=L85IZfyaOc&a=cc_unsubscribe