https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Bug ID: 828993 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1 - Text Editor Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: benedikt@schaefer-flieden.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad.spec SRPM URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.src.rp... Description: L3afpad is a simple GTK+ text editor that emphasizes simplicity. As development focuses on keeping weight down to a minimum, only the most essential features are implemented in the editor. L3afpad is simple to use, is easily compiled, requires few libraries, and starts up quickly. Fedora Account System Username:ib54003
This is my first package and I need a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |cwickert@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrunge@matthias-runge.de Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: l3afpad - |l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1 - Text |Simple text editor |Editor | Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
John Morris john@zultron.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |john@zultron.com
--- Comment #1 from John Morris john@zultron.com --- Hi Benedikt,
Is your package different from the one already available in Fedora?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/applications/Leafpad?_csrf_token=70d0c...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- Yes, l3afpad is not leafpad but a fork of it that builds against GTK3 and includes some bugfixes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #3 from John Morris john@zultron.com --- Created attachment 595172 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=595172&action=edit fedora-review for l3afpad
Output of fedora-review; Items marked with a capital "X" are items I checked manually. Items needing attention pasted at bottom.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #4 from John Morris john@zultron.com --- Hi Benedikt, here are a few issues, the first detected by fedora-review, the rest I found myself. Be sure to check the attached review. I checked most of the items, but left a few blank.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 ** rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install; is this intended for EPEL5? [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ** There is an %{_iconsdir} macro; could replace %{_datadir}/icons ** There is a %{_desktopdir} macro; could replace %{_datadir}/applications [!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. ** Does this pkg need to own all those directories in %{_iconsdir}? [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0: l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-missing-semicolon.patch (l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-missing-semicolon.patch) ** I'd put: ** Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-missing-semicolon.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #5 from Benedikt Schäfer benedikt@schaefer-flieden.de --- Hi, sorry that i answer only now, but i completely forgot it. Here are the corrections:
Spec URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad.spec SRPM URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(john@zultron.com)
--- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- The new package does not build:
Fehler beim Bauen des RPM: Datei muss mit "/" beginnen: %{_desktopdir}/l3afpad.desktop Datei muss mit "/" beginnen: %{_iconsdir}/hicolor/*/apps/ Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
John, I never heard of %{_desktopdir} and %{_iconsdir}. Are you sure these macros are defined in Fedora?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(john@zultron.com) |
--- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- $ rpm --eval %{_iconsdir} /usr/share/icons $ rpm --eval %{_desktopdir} /usr/share/applications
So the two marcos are defined...
$ grep -r %_desktopdir /etc/rpm /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage:%_desktopdir %{_datadir}/applications $ grep -r %_iconsdir /etc/rpm /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage:%_iconsdir %{_datadir}/icons
... and they are defined in /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage
$ rpm -qf /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage jpackage-utils-1.7.5-18.1.fc17.x86_64
... which belongs to jpackage-utils. This means we either need "BuildRequires: jpackage-utils" or use the %{_datadir} marco. I thin this is better because we cannot be sure that jpackage-utils is always available. We should not require anything just for two macro.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
John Morris john@zultron.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |john@zultron.com
--- Comment #8 from John Morris john@zultron.com --- Christoph is right. Suggestion withdrawn. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #9 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org --- Ok, i finished the RPM!
http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #10 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad.spec SRPM URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc18.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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.
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 (GPLv2+). [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. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: 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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 2 files have unknown license. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Buildroot is not present [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9.tar.xz) [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. [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: l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.src.rpm l3afpad-debuginfo-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm l3afpad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary l3afpad 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint l3afpad l3afpad-debuginfo l3afpad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary l3afpad 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
l3afpad-debuginfo-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
l3afpad = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17 l3afpad(x86-64) = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17 mimehandler(text/plain)
l3afpad-debuginfo-0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
l3afpad-debuginfo = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17 l3afpad-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.8.18.1.9-1.fc17
MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.calno.com/l3afpad/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c08cceaa3c957e235ec9d698f93524d86ef68670681cf204552e2f5fd632f957 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c08cceaa3c957e235ec9d698f93524d86ef68670681cf204552e2f5fd632f957
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 828993
So there is only one minor item: The package does not preserve timestamps during %install. Instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} use make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INATALL='install -p'
And a suggestion: Instead of patching the desktop file for a missing semicolon, just use desktop-file-install, it will add the semicolon automatically:
desktop-file-install \ --delete-original \ --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
The package is APPROVED, but before I sponsor you, I'd like you to take part in other reviews and do at least one complete informal review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- New version 0.8.18.1.10 is out.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #13 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org --- Ok do i have, first to correct the Specfile and than doing the upgrade to the new version or can i do it in one step.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- You can do it in one step but please make sure to list all changes in the %changelog. E.g.:
- Update to 0.8.18.1.10 - Fix this - Change that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #15 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org --- Ok, now it should be finished! Hopefully ;)
Spec URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad.spec SRPM URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/l3afpad/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc18.src.r...
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #16 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org --- Package Name: l3afpad Short Description: Simple text editor Owners: ib54003 cwickert Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #17 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- Benedikt, please make sure to use the template form the wiki *with* the heading. This is parsed by a tool and not done manually by a human.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: l3afpad Short Description: Simple text editor Owners: ib54003 cwickert Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- FAS email and bugzilla email don't match.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #19 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org --- That is intended, Toshio pushed an exception.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: l3afpad Short Description: Simple text editor Owners: ib54003 cwickert Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2013-02-23 15:53:13
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc17
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla