[Bug 1266939] New: Review Request: kf5-purpose - Framework for providing abstractions to get the developer's purposes fulfilled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
Bug ID: 1266939 Summary: Review Request: kf5-purpose - Framework for providing abstractions to get the developer's purposes fulfilled Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdieter@math.unl.edu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kf5/kf5-purpose.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kf5/kf5-purpose-1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Purpose offers the possibility to create integrate services and actions on any application without having to implement them specifically. Purpose will offer them mechanisms to list the different alternatives to execute given the requested action type and will facilitate components so that all the plugins can receive all the information they need.
Fedora Account System Username: rdieter
This package is required for kf5 kamoso-3.0
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11254121
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |656997 (kde-reviews) Alias| |kf5-purpose
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattia.verga@tiscali.it Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mattia.verga@tiscali.it Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
--- Comment #1 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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. [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. [x]: 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]: 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. [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. [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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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. [!]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== 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 ------- rpmlint kf5-purpose-1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm kf5-purpose.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.kde.org/stable/purpose/1.0/purpose-1.0.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/kf5-purpose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- Package APPROVED but you need to fix the wrong URL of the source file before importing in SCM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kf5-purpose-1.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6343dc34cd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kf5-purpose-1.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1e71a5a193
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kf5-purpose-1.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1e71a5a193
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kf5-purpose-1.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6343dc34cd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kf5-purpose-1.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-01-10 14:24:52
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- kf5-purpose-1.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla