Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: qupzilla - Modern web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Summary: Review Request: qupzilla - Modern web browser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cwickert@fedoraproject.org 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://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/qupzilla.spec SRPM URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/qupzilla-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: QupZilla is modern web browser based on WebKit core and Qt Framework. It is designed to be lightweight and fast and offers advanced functions such as - an integrated advertisement blocker, - a search engine manager, - a SSL certificate manager, - speed dial - theming support, and - seamless integration into your desktop environment
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4056074
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=819184
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |656997(kde-reviews) Alias| |qupzilla
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=819184
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at Flag| |fedora-review?
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=819184
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |volker27@gmx.at
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=819184
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2012-05-06 11:47:02 EDT --- The development symlink should not be there, as there are no headers. I suggest to just delete it.
Since one of the seemingly private libraries is installed in libdir, rpmlint complains about not running ldconfig. If this library really is private, it should ideally not be in libdir, but in the subdirectory along with the others. The provides of the final package also contain all those private libraries; that should be filtered.
%dir %{_libdir}/qupzilla and %{_libdir}/qupzilla/*.so could be simplified to %{_libdir}/qupzilla. Probably use the name macro here.
There are a couple of warnings for the desktop file. You should also run a scriplet for the icons installed in datadir/icons: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
Consider to include README.md, as it contains some useful information.
I suggest to add a -f where you're deleting the "useless plugin", just in case it disappears in a future release.
Buildroot rm in the install section, clean section and buildroot definition are definitely not necessary, as you BR qt >= 4.7, which is only in Fedora.
I think the package could have a better Summary, but it's not a must.
I noticed, there are a couple of plug-ins and private libraries with BSD licenses. As far as I understand http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensi..., this should be mentioned or the files should even be put to sub-packages.
Somebody once suggested on one of my reviews, to remove the trailing slash after the domain name on the URL. I don't mind it, but I'd like to mention it.
Are USE_WEBGL and USE_QTWEBKIT_2_2 options of interest? Both should work, I think.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Still interested?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- Sure, but currently very busy. I don' think I will find time next week, if somebody else wants to move this forward, he is welcome.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #1)
The development symlink should not be there, as there are no headers. I suggest to just delete it.
done.
Since one of the seemingly private libraries is installed in libdir, rpmlint complains about not running ldconfig. If this library really is private, it should ideally not be in libdir, but in the subdirectory along with the others. The provides of the final package also contain all those private libraries; that should be filtered.
I filtered out libQupZilla and the plugins and run ldconfig to make rpmlint happy. Attempts to move the library to %{_libdir}/%{name}/ have been too cumbersome.
%dir %{_libdir}/qupzilla and %{_libdir}/qupzilla/*.so could be simplified to %{_libdir}/qupzilla. Probably use the name macro here.
done.
There are a couple of warnings for the desktop file.
I am using desktop-file-install now as I also add x-scheme-handlers.
You should also run a scriplet for the icons installed in datadir/icons
D'oh, of course.
Consider to include README.md, as it contains some useful information.
done.
I suggest to add a -f where you're deleting the "useless plugin", just in case it disappears in a future release.
done.
Buildroot rm in the install section, clean section and buildroot definition are definitely not necessary, as you BR qt >= 4.7, which is only in Fedora.
done.
I think the package could have a better Summary, but it's not a must.
What do you think could be improved?
I noticed, there are a couple of plug-ins and private libraries with BSD licenses.
Changed the license tag to "GPLv3+ and BSD".
Are USE_WEBGL and USE_QTWEBKIT_2_2 options of interest? Both should work, I think.
Yes, it does and they add interesting features.
New package: * Sat Oct 06 2012 Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org - 1.3.5-1 - Update to 1.3.5 - Enable WebGL (USE_WEBGL) - Enable geolocation and notification API (USE_QTWEBKIT_2_2) - Change icense tag to "GPLv3+ and BSD" (some plugins are BSD licensed) - Add x-scheme-handlers so qupzilla can be set as default browser - Filter out private requires and provides - Include README.md in %%doc
Spec URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/qupzilla.spec SRPM URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc19.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4566303
$ rpmlint SPECS/qupzilla.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc17.src.rpm qupzilla.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US theming -> teeming, hemming, emitting 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/qupzilla-* qupzilla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US theming -> teeming, hemming, emitting qupzilla.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qupzilla 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Ad summary:
Probably something like "Modern Qt-based web browser" -- Slightly less generic
Ad filtering provides:
I think, there's a more up to date method: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
In anticipation that you fit the other minor issues easily, this package is approved.
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Please see discussion in the former comments!
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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 if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/review-qupzilla/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec.
Please add a comment in the spec file!
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
Since qupzilla requires Qt 4.7, it will never go to EPEL5. Thus the buildroot is not necessary. I still think the ">= 4.7" could go away as well, since every version of Fedora has Qt >= 4.7.
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
You could add --as-needed to avoid libm and libQtXml, if that makes any sense.
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (QupZilla-1.3.5.tar.gz)
This is due to the non-capitalized name and not an error.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Themes loose their original date
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== 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: qupzilla-debuginfo-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.src.rpm qupzilla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US theming -> teeming, hemming, emitting qupzilla.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qupzilla qupzilla.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US theming -> teeming, hemming, emitting 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint qupzilla qupzilla-debuginfo qupzilla.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US qupzilla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQupZilla.so.1.3.5 linux-vdso.so.1 qupzilla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQupZilla.so.1.3.5 /usr/lib64/libQtXml.so.4 qupzilla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQupZilla.so.1.3.5 /lib64/libm.so.6 qupzilla.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qupzilla 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- qupzilla-debuginfo-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtScript.so.4()(64bit) libQtSql.so.4()(64bit) libQtWebKit.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 -------- qupzilla-debuginfo-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
qupzilla-debuginfo = 1.3.5-1.fc16 qupzilla-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.3.5-1.fc16
qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
mimehandler(application/xhtml+xml) mimehandler(text/html) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/http) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/https) qupzilla = 1.3.5-1.fc16 qupzilla(x86-64) = 1.3.5-1.fc16
Unversioned so-files -------------------- qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libAccessKeysNavigation.so qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libGreaseMonkey.so qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libMouseGestures.so qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libPIM.so
MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/downloads/QupZilla/qupzilla/QupZilla-1.3.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af8266dce8c3d353a9b7e2c0494651b55f3715b06e8465ff730f4e618fe453a3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af8266dce8c3d353a9b7e2c0494651b55f3715b06e8465ff730f4e618fe453a3
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n qupzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: qupzilla Short Description: Modern web browser Owners: cwickert kkofler rdieter volter Branches: F16 F17 F18 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #5)
Ad summary:
Probably something like "Modern Qt-based web browser" -- Slightly less generic
AFAIC we should not use technical terms like tool kits or programming language in the summary, they don't matter from a user's POV.
Ad filtering provides:
I think, there's a more up to date method: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
Thanks, this is slightly easier, however I wonder if it was approved by the packaging committee.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec.
Please add a comment in the spec file!
Actually this is not really a multiple licensing scenario because the resulting binaries or libs are not under separate licenses.
If code that is licensed under different licenses is compiled into one binary or library, then the most restrictive license applies. GPLv2+ and BSD compiled into one plugin results in GPLv2+, GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ results in GPLv3+. We could as well just declare the whole package GPLv3+, nevertheless I have listed the individual licenses and added a comment to the spec.
[!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
Since qupzilla requires Qt 4.7, it will never go to EPEL5. Thus the buildroot is not necessary. I still think the ">= 4.7" could go away as well, since every version of Fedora has Qt >= 4.7.
Fixed.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
You could add --as-needed to avoid libm and libQtXml, if that makes any sense.
Done.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Themes loose their original date
Fixed.
Thanks for this careful review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-12-20 11:29:14
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Christian Dersch lupinix@mailbox.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lupinix@mailbox.org Alias|qupzilla |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184
Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |qupzilla
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla