https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
Bug ID: 1378807 Summary: Review Request: mingw-podofo - MinGW Windows podofo library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisandro@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-podofo.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-podofo-0.9.4-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows podofo library Fedora Account System Username: smani
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pahan@hubbitus.info Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pahan@hubbitus.info Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [=] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - ${pkgname} should be %{pkgname} in summary and description - Why you are explicitly delete manpages?? - incorrect-fsf-address should be reported upstream. mingw32-podofo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw32-podofo/COPYING.LIB - Tools must require main package?
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: 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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 209 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/FEDORA/reviews/mingw-podofo/0/1378807-mingw- podofo/licensecheck.txt [+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [+]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [+]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [+]: 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 [+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [+]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [=]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [=]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [+]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [+]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [+]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [+]: 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. [+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [+]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [+]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [+]: Dist tag is present. [+]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [+]: Permissions on files are set properly. [=]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [+]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [=]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [+]: Package is not relocatable. [+]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [+]: File names are valid UTF-8. [=]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [+]: 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. [+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-podofo, mingw64-podofo, mingw32-podofo-tools, mingw64-podofo-tools Tools must require main package? [=]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [+]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [+]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [=]: 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. [+]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+]: Buildroot is not present [+]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [+]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [+]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [+]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [+]: SourceX is a working URL. [+]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Requires -------- mingw32-podofo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(gdi32.dll) mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libfreetype-6.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw32(libpng16-16.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(libtiff-5.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(user32.dll) mingw32(ws2_32.dll) mingw32(zlib1.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem
mingw64-podofo-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libpodofo.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem
mingw32-podofo-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libpodofo.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem
mingw64-podofo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(gdi32.dll) mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libfreetype-6.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw64(libpng16-16.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(libtiff-5.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(user32.dll) mingw64(ws2_32.dll) mingw64(zlib1.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem
Provides -------- mingw32-podofo: mingw32(libpodofo.dll) mingw32-podofo
mingw64-podofo-tools: mingw64-podofo-tools
mingw32-podofo-tools: mingw32-podofo-tools
mingw64-podofo: mingw64(libpodofo.dll) mingw64-podofo
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/podofo/podofo-0.9.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ccdf505fcb4904617e728b15729da8700ff38442c1dd2f24fbd52934287ff859 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccdf505fcb4904617e728b15729da8700ff38442c1dd2f24fbd52934287ff859
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1378807 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- Sorry if I miss something. It is my first mingw review and package almost looks fine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-podofo.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-podofo-0.9.4-2.fc26.src.rpm
%changelog * Sun Oct 02 2016 Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com - 0.9.4-2 - Fix typo ${pkgname} -> %%{pkgname}
- ${pkgname} should be %{pkgname} in summary and description Uups, typo, good catch!
- Why you are explicitly delete manpages?? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/MinGW#Files_whic...
- incorrect-fsf-address should be reported upstream. mingw32-podofo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw32-podofo/COPYING.LIB Wish I knew how... https://sourceforge.net/p/podofo/bugs/ is reported as being the bug tracker, but I can't create a ticket because "To create a new ticket, you must be authorized by the project admin." Which is kinda odd.
- Tools must require main package? Taken care of by the automatic dependency generator: $ rpm -qp --requires mingw32-podofo-tools-0.9.4-1.fc26.noarch.rpm [...] mingw32(libpodofo.dll) [...]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.info --- At least there maillist - https://sourceforge.net/p/podofo/mailman/ and I encourage you sent mail about FSF address.
Meantime it is minor "should" issue. Other seems good.
Package APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mingw-podofo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378807
Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-10-03 10:08:50
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla