[Bug 772616] New: Review Request: epstool - A utility to create or extract preview images in EPS files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: epstool - A utility to create or extract preview images in EPS files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Summary: Review Request: epstool - A utility to create or extract preview images in EPS files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jussi.lehtola@iki.fi QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/epstool.spec
SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/epstool-3.08-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Epstool is a utility to create or extract preview images in EPS files, fix bounding boxes and convert to bitmaps.
Features: * Add EPSI, DOS EPS or Mac PICT previews. * Extract PostScript from DOS EPS files. * Uses Ghostscript to create preview bitmaps. * Create a TIFF, WMF, PICT or Interchange preview from part of a bitmap created by Ghostscript. * works under Win32, Win64, OS/2 and Unix. * works on little-endian machines (Intel) or big endian (Sun Sparc, Motorola) machines.
rpmlint output: epstool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane epstool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane epstool.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/epstool-3.08/LICENCE 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |772577
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orion@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2012-01-09 12:10:22 EST --- First comment, has the fsf-address issue been reported upstream?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2012-01-09 12:32:15 EST --- It has now.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orion@cora.nwra.com Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2012-01-12 16:35:40 EST --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ x: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. Note: Found : Packager: Orion Poplawski [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /export/home/orion/redhat/epstool-3.08/772616/epstool-3.08.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 465a57a598dbef411f4ecbfbd7d4c8d7 MD5SUM upstream package : 465a57a598dbef411f4ecbfbd7d4c8d7
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: http://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/ghostgum/epstool-3.08.tar.gz (epstool-3.08.tar.gz) Patch0: epstool-3.08-gcc43.patch (epstool-3.08-gcc43.patch) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
I'll mark this as approved. Please make the above modifications if your are not needing EPEL5/6 support as appropriate. You also may want to use %{name} and %{version} in the Source0 url.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2012-01-15 12:59:14 EST --- Thanks for the review. I'll switch to using %{version} on the Source0 line before git import.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: epstool Short Description: A utility to create or extract preview images in EPS files Owners: jussilehtola Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-01-15 17:24:58 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-16 03:14:20 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/epstool-3.08-2.el5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-16 03:14:29 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/epstool-3.08-2.fc16
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-16 03:14:37 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/epstool-3.08-2.fc15
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-16 14:31:09 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |epstool-3.08-2.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-01-24 14:58:56
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-24 14:58:56 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|epstool-3.08-2.fc16 |epstool-3.08-2.fc15
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-24 14:59:04 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|epstool-3.08-2.fc15 |epstool-3.08-2.el5
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 12:53:03 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla