Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gitso - A front-end to reverse VNC connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752311
Summary: Review Request: gitso - A front-end to reverse VNC connections Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cedric.olivier@free.fr QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso/gitso.spec SRPM URL: http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso/gitso-0.6-1.fc15.src.rpm
Description: Gitso is a front-end to reverse VNC connections. It is meant to be a simple two-step process that connects one person to another screen.
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=752311
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pikachu.2014@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pikachu.2014@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com 2011-12-16 07:39:07 EST --- Some comments:
* You don't need to define the %python_sitelib macro, it is already defined by default (see the /usr/lib/rpm/macros file): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros * I don't really think python-devel is needed to build your package. * Since python and wxGTK are already required by wxPython, you can remove these two packages from the Requires. * Do you really think gitso modules need to be installed in %{python_sitelib}/%{name} ? These files are not inteded to be visible from Python. You should install them in %{_datadir}/%{name}, as done by upstream. * Why did you remove the MimeType key in the .desktop file?
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=752311
--- Comment #2 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.olivier@free.fr 2011-12-24 11:15:24 EST --- Thanks a lot for your comments :
I have made an update :
SRPM URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-2/gitso-0.6-2.fc16.src.rpm Spec URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-2/gitso.spec
* I have removed python_sitelib_macro, and python-devel buildrequires and python, wxGTK requires. SRPM successfully rebuild with mock.
* Changing install destination.
* Removing MimeType was an error when removing deprecated entries in desktop file.
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=752311
--- Comment #3 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.olivier@free.fr 2011-12-24 13:00:07 EST --- Sorry, this previous version doesn't work. You can find here a updated functional version :
SRPM URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-3/gitso-0.6-3.fc16.src.rpm Spec URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-3/gitso.spec
* I have removed patch2, due to install directory change
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=752311
--- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com 2012-01-03 07:25:23 EST --- Your package doesn't provide any binary. It should be "noarch".
Notice also the following rpmlint warnings: gitso.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitso/ArgsParser.py 0644L /usr/bin/env gitso.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitso/Gitso.py 0644L /usr/bin/env gitso.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitso/ConnectionWindow.py 0644L /usr/bin/env gitso.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitso/NATPMP.py 0644L /usr/bin/env gitso.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitso/Processes.py 0644L /usr/bin/env gitso.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitso/GitsoThread.py 0644L /usr/bin/env You must remove the shebang at the top of each of these files, as described here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_li...
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=752311
--- Comment #5 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.olivier@free.fr 2012-01-03 13:59:03 EST --- followed your observations I made the change :
SRPM URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-4/gitso-0.6-4.fc16.src.rpm Spec URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-4/gitso.spec
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=752311
--- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com 2012-01-03 14:20:55 EST --- Two last comments and I will approve your package: - add a %build section, even if it's empty - please change %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz to %{_mandir}/man1/gnac.1* so the extension .gz is not hardcoded, in case the man pages compressing format changes.
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=752311
--- Comment #7 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.olivier@free.fr 2012-01-03 15:34:11 EST --- Thanks a lot, new spec and srpms :
SRPM URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-5/gitso-0.6-5.fc16.src.rpm Spec URL : http://cedric.olivier.free.fr/rpms/gitso-0.6-5/gitso.spec
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=752311
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com 2012-01-03 18:04:44 EST --- Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. gitso.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://gitso.googlecode.com/files/gitso_0.6_src.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The warning can be safely ignored
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] 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. The source code is actually licensed to GPLv3 or more.
[+] 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 %doc.
[+] 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.
MD5 sum=d0eaacf0b546ab5300523de1e5dab9b6 OK
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported 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.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package 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: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review
[+] 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go 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} = %{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
You just need to set the License tag to *GPLv3+*. Anyway I trust you to fix it when you'll import the package. *APPROVED*
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=752311
Cédric OLIVIER cedric.olivier@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.olivier@free.fr 2012-01-04 16:26:06 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gitso Short Description: Gitso is a front-end to reverse VNC connections. It is meant to be a simple two-step process that connects one person to another screen. Owners: cquad Branches: f15 f16 el6 InitialCC: cquad
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=752311
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-01-05 08:02:46 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=752311
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=752311
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-05 15:59:36 EST --- gitso-0.6-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gitso-0.6-6.el6
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=752311
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-05 16:01:10 EST --- gitso-0.6-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gitso-0.6-6.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=752311
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-05 16:03:48 EST --- gitso-0.6-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gitso-0.6-6.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=752311
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-06 21:30:36 EST --- gitso-0.6-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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=752311
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |gitso-0.6-6.el6 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-01-21 15:34:40
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-21 15:34:40 EST --- gitso-0.6-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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=752311
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|gitso-0.6-6.el6 |gitso-0.6-6.fc16
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-22 00:24:00 EST --- gitso-0.6-6.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=752311
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|gitso-0.6-6.fc16 |gitso-0.6-6.fc15
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-22 00:27:49 EST --- gitso-0.6-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla