[Bug 722812] New: Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722812

Summary: Review Request: worker - X11 File manager
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: Unspecified
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: unspecified
          Priority: unspecified
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],
                    [e-mail]
    Classification: Fedora
      Story Points: ---

SRPM URL:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ak5y54kky6gq4zq/worker-2.18.0-1.fc15.src.rpm
SPEC URL: http://www.mediafire.com/file/mo0fkxityhk4rr8/worker.spec

Description:
A X11 file manager that features low requirements, fast and easy access to
archives and remote sites and more

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Nathan Owe  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Rahul Sundaram  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram  2011-07-18 01:40:42 EDT ---
Remove build requires that are part of the default buildroot

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

Remove the explicit requires

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

Build the package using mock build or koji scratch build and verify that you
have specified the dependencies correctly

Run rpmlint on the spec file, srpm and binary rpm and ensure that all valid
warnings and errors are fixed

After that,  bump up the release

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #2 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-19 00:43:21 EDT ---
First while I remember. I looked at the packages not to list in BuildRequires,
and it did not list to not list libX11-devel. Also it is required in order to
build.

First the new SPEC: 
http://fpaste.org/RJK7

rpmlint on the SRPM:
[makedev@revan SRPMS]$ rpmlint worker-2.18.0-2.fc15.src.rpm 
worker.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint on RPM:
[makedev@revan SRPMS]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/worker-2.18.0-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
worker.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
worker.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/fr/man1/worker.1.gz
worker.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/it/man1/worker.1.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram  2011-07-19 03:06:55 EDT ---

defattr is not required anymore.

you should use find_lang macro to handle locale files

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files

Fix the problem of man pages not being in UTF-8 format

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8

Please submit the revised spec as well as the SRPM for review

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #4 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-19 11:05:48 EDT ---
First I did the %find_lang %{name} and it wouldn't compile, saying that no
translations found.

NEW SPEC:
http://fpaste.org/U5Qx/

NEW SRPM:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ixt23r8psb48kk3/worker-2.18.0-4.fc15.src.rpm

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #5 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-21 00:05:30 EDT ---
It seems the new SPEC file paste is expiring so I created a new one:
http://pastebin.com/azPCB09p

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Martin Gieseking  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking  2011-07-22 02:53:49 EDT ---
Nathan, if you don't have access to the fedorapeople.org webspace yet, I
suggest to use something like dropbox for example. It's an easy way to upload
and to provide publicly accessible files.

Here are some further comments on your package:

- You can combine the separate file conversions with a loop: 
  cd man
  for f in fr/worker.1 it/worker.1; do
    iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 $f > $f.new && \
    touch -r $f $f.new && \
    mv $f.new $f
  done

- The package contains a .desktop file that must be properly installed or
  verified with desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files

- Drop line %docdir %{_mandir}/* from %files as the affected directories are
  flagged as docdirs by default.

- The package currently doesn't own the directory /usr/share/worker/ but only
  its contents. Drop the trailing asterisk from %{_datadir}/worker/* (in 
  %files) to fix this.

- Add the following line to %files:
  %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING THANKS
  Especially the file containing the license text, if present in the tarball,
  must always be added to the package.

- Please be more verbose in the %files section and avoid to use single plain
  asterisks. This way it's easier to see what's actually packaged and it also
  helps to prevent adding unwanted files. Also don't add the suffix .gz to 
  the manpage files since the compression format applied by rpmbuild might 
  change:
  %{_bindir}/worker
  %{_datadir}/applications/worker.desktop
  %{_datadir}/pixmaps/WorkerIcon*.xpm
  %{_datadir}/worker/
  %{_mandir}/man1/worker.1*
  %{_mandir}/fr/man1/worker.1*
  %{_mandir}/it/man1/worker.1*

- To increase legibility, please add blank lines before %build and between 
  the %changelog entries. Also, add spaces after "*" and "-" in the 
  %changelog.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Nathan Owe  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)      |

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking  2011-07-22 12:19:57 EDT ---
Nathan, have you already been sponsored or aren't you interested in submitting
this package any longer? I just noticed you removed the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker
but can't find you in the packager group yet. If you don't want to join the
group any longer, please close this ticket as NOTABUG.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #8 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-22 12:30:51 EDT ---
Thanks for asking. It seems that lemenkov is going to review my other package
review and sponsor me as well http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724859

I am currently correcting the issues in the package as mentioned.
Thanks

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Martin Gieseking  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking  2011-07-22 12:47:05 EDT ---
OK, thanks for the clarification. In this case I readd the FE-NEEDSPONSOR
blocker. It should stay active until the sponsoring process is finished because
this prevents a premature approval of the package. Peter will possibly review
this package as well.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #10 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-22 13:22:23 EDT ---
New SPEC:
http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/worker.spec
No rpmlint errors

New SRPM:
http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/worker-2.18.0-5.fc15....
No rpmlint errors

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Nathan Owe  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)      |

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Martin Gieseking  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #11 from Martin Gieseking  2011-07-26 09:25:00 EDT ---
The package looks good now. Just a couple of (non-blocking) comments:
- You can drop the initial cleaning of the buildroot in %install if you 
  intend to build the package for Fedora and EPEL 6 only. Otherwise, you 
  must add a BuildRoot field, and a %clean section as described here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_speci...

EPEL 4 also needs a %defattr(-,root,root,-) at the top of the %files
  section.

- The Summary sounds odd to my ears. I'd remove the "the":
  File manager for X11

- Add a final period to the %description.

You should apply these changes before committing the package.

$ rpmlint worker*.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] 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.
    - GPLv2+ 
    - The bison parser is licensed under GPLv3+ but the additional exception
      allows the parser to be used in GPLv2+ binaries as well.

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The 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.
    $ md5sum worker-2.18.0.tar.gz*
    545912187102a788a5d15ef251d6821c  worker-2.18.0.tar.gz
    545912187102a788a5d15ef251d6821c  worker-2.18.0.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc 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 .so files with a suffix, then .so files without
suffix must go in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file. 
[+] MUST: .desktop files 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.

EPEL <= 5 only:
[X] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[X] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[.] 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.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

----------------
Package APPROVED
----------------

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #12 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-26 10:03:00 EDT ---
SPEC: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/worker.spec
SRPM:
http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/worker-2.18.0-6.fc15....

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #13 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-26 10:04:04 EDT ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: worker
Short Description: File manager for X11
Owners: ndowens
Branches: f15
InitialCC:

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Nathan Owe  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #14 from Martin Gieseking  2011-07-26 10:14:23 EDT ---
Nathan, please set the fedora-cvs flag to "?". Otherwise, your request doesn't
get noticed.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Nathan Owe  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs+                 |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #15 from Nathan Owe  2011-07-26 10:17:13 EDT ---
Thanks for the information. I was thinking + meant that it was ready to be
created in the repo.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla  2011-07-26 10:32:37 EDT ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  2011-07-26 14:22:48 EDT ---
worker-2.18.0-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/worker-2.18.0-6.fc15

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  2011-07-30 23:42:10 EDT ---
worker-2.18.0-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-08 21:36:35 EDT ---
worker-2.18.0-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

[Bug 722812] Review Request: worker - X11 File manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=722812

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |worker-2.18.0-6.fc15
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2011-08-08 21:36:41