https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
Bug ID: 1011500 Summary: Review Request: qt5-qtconfiguration - Qt5 - QtConfiguration module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lkundrak@v3.sk QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 928937 (qt-reviews)
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/qt5-qtconfiguration.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/qt5-qtconfiguration-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Settings API with change notifications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dconf)
can be dconf-devel, no need to use pkgconfig everywhere.
---
Use github tag
---
No license as %doc
---
Why
BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-devel >= %{version} ??
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org |
--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dconf)
can be dconf-devel, no need to use pkgconfig everywhere.
config.tests/dconf/dconf.pro seems to use pkgconfig to locate the package. This is more robust.
Use github tag
I do (v0.1.0) and am not sure I understand what you really mean.
No license as %doc
Will fix.
Why
BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-devel >= %{version} ??
The version? I copied it from another qt5 package. I'll remove that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
--- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- Ping?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmaker/Desktop/qt5-qtconfiguration/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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. [x]: 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 92160 bytes in 4 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 %doc. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: qt5-qtconfiguration-0.1.0-3.fc21.i686.rpm qt5-qtconfiguration-devel-0.1.0-3.fc21.i686.rpm qt5-qtconfiguration-0.1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm qt5-qtconfiguration-devel.i686: W: no-documentation qt5-qtconfiguration.src: W: invalid-url Source0: qtconfiguration-0.1.0.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint qt5-qtconfiguration qt5-qtconfiguration-devel qt5-qtconfiguration-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- qt5-qtconfiguration (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libQt5Core.so.5 libQt5DBus.so.5 libc.so.6 libdconf-dbus-1.so.0 libdconf.so.1 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) qt5-qtbase(x86-32) rtld(GNU_HASH)
qt5-qtconfiguration-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libQt0Configuration.so.0 pkgconfig(Qt5Core) pkgconfig(Qt5DBus) qt5-qtbase-devel(x86-32) qt5-qtconfiguration(x86-32)
Provides -------- qt5-qtconfiguration: libQt0Configuration.so.0 qt5-qtconfiguration qt5-qtconfiguration(x86-32)
qt5-qtconfiguration-devel: pkgconfig(Qt0Configuration) qt5-qtconfiguration-devel qt5-qtconfiguration-devel(x86-32)
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn qt5-qtconfiguration-0.1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
---------------------------- PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: qt5-qtconfiguration Short Description: Qt5 - QtConfiguration module Owners: lkundrak cicku rdieter than jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011500
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2013-11-08 12:55:03
--- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- Imported and built. Thank you!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla