[Bug 1479844] New: Review Request: deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment
9:33 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
Bug ID: 1479844
Summary: Review Request: deepin-notifications - System
notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: sztsian(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/deepin-notifications/deepin-notifi...
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/deepin-notifications/deepin-notifi...
Description: System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment.
Fedora Account System Username: zsun
--
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
9:33 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1479844] Review Request:
deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop
environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
Zamir SUN <sztsian(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1465889
| |(DeepinDEPackageReview)
Alias| |deepin-notifications
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889
[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker
--
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
3:09 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1479844] Review Request:
deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop
environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Hello,
The package looks good. You could replace the -devel direct dependencies with
pkgconfig ones:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5Svg)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5Qml)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dtkutil)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk+-2.0)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files
have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/deepin-notifications/review-deepin-
notifications/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in deepin-
notifications-debuginfo
[?]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
--
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
8:21 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1479844] Review Request:
deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop
environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
--- Comment #2 from Zamir SUN <sztsian(a)gmail.com> ---
Thanks.
Updated in place.
Spec URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/deepin-notifications/deepin-notifi...
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/deepin-notifications/deepin-notifi...
--
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
9:34 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1479844] Review Request:
deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop
environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
--- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com> ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-notifications
--
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
9:34 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1479844] Review Request:
deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop
environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) <zebob.m(a)gmail.com>
---
Everything is ok, package accepted.
Thanks for your work.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files
have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/deepin-notifications/review-deepin-
notifications/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in deepin-
notifications-debuginfo
[?]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
--
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
12:34 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1479844] Review Request:
deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop
environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean <rbean(a)redhat.com> ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-notifications
--
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
7:56 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1479844] Review Request:
deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop
environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
Zamir SUN <sztsian(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed| |2017-12-31 20:56:00
--- Comment #6 from Zamir SUN <sztsian(a)gmail.com> ---
This is already in Rawhide. Thanks.
--
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
2344
days inactive
2489
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com