[Bug 1660538] New: Review Request: emacs-popup - Visual popup user interface library for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1660538
Bug ID: 1660538 Summary: Review Request: emacs-popup - Visual popup user interface library for Emacs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tim@tim-landscheidt.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
popup is a visual popup user interface library for Emacs. This provides a basic API and common UI widgets such as popup tool-tips and popup menus.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/scfc/emacs-auto-complete-upd... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/scfc/emacs-auto-complete-upd... Description: Visual popup user interface library for Emacs Fedora Account System Username: scfc
This is my first package and I need a sponsor. Example build at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/scfc/emacs-auto-complete-update/buil....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1660538
Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |1309161
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309161 [Bug 1309161] emacs-auto-complete-v1.5.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1660538
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Use a better name for your archive:
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Package approved.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/emacs-popup/review-emacs- popup/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [-]: 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. [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]: 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. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: emacs-popup-0.5.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm emacs-popup-0.5.3-1.fc30.src.rpm emacs-popup.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 14: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: emacs(bin) >= %{_emacs_version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
You still need to find a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1660538
Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2019-06-13 13:21:33
--- Comment #2 from Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de --- Thanks for the review! However, as the potential consumer of this package (emacs-auto-complete) has been retired in the mean time, I won't be pursuing this any further.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com