[Bug 1289738] New: Review Request: plasma-user-manager - Manage the users of your system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Bug ID: 1289738 Summary: Review Request: plasma-user-manager - Manage the users of your system 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/plasma5/plasma-user-manager.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/plasma-user-manager-5.5.0-10.f... Description: A simple system settings module to manage the users of your system.
Fedora Account System Username: rdieter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1135103 (plasma5), 656997 | |(kde-reviews) Alias| |plasma-user-manager
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12114393
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=1135103 [Bug 1135103] Plasma 5 Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1279057
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279057 [Bug 1279057] There is no way to set the user avatar / face icon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- rdieter's scratch build of plasma-user-manager-5.5.0-10.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12114393
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1293078
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293078 [Bug 1293078] SDDM doesn't use .face.icon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
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=1289738
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter@math.unl.edu Flags| |needinfo?(rdieter@math.unl. | |edu)
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - License in .spec file is GPLv2+ but some sources are licensed as GPLv2, some others are LGPL (v2 or later).
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/1289738-plasma-user- manager/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [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 %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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plasma- user-manager-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: plasma-user-manager-5.5.0-10.fc24.x86_64.rpm plasma-user-manager-debuginfo-5.5.0-10.fc24.x86_64.rpm plasma-user-manager-5.5.0-10.fc24.src.rpm plasma-user-manager.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: plasma-user-manager-debuginfo-5.5.0-10.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente plasma-user-manager.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- plasma-user-manager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libKF5Auth.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Bookmarks.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Codecs.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Completion.so.5()(64bit) libKF5ConfigCore.so.5()(64bit) libKF5ConfigGui.so.5()(64bit) libKF5ConfigWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Crash.so.5()(64bit) libKF5GuiAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit) libKF5IconThemes.so.5()(64bit) libKF5ItemViews.so.5()(64bit) libKF5JobWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KDELibs4Support.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KIOCore.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KIOFileWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KIOWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Notifications.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Parts.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Service.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Solid.so.5()(64bit) libKF5SonnetUi.so.5()(64bit) libKF5TextWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libKF5UnitConversion.so.5()(64bit) libKF5WidgetsAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5WindowSystem.so.5()(64bit) libKF5XmlGui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6)(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Xml.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpwquality.so.1()(64bit) libpwquality.so.1(LIBPWQUALITY_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
plasma-user-manager-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- plasma-user-manager: plasma-user-manager plasma-user-manager(x86-64) user-manager
plasma-user-manager-debuginfo: plasma-user-manager-debuginfo plasma-user-manager-debuginfo(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- plasma-user-manager: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/user_manager.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://download.kde.org/stable/plasma/5.5.0/user-manager-5.5.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 491cbd4d9d611a101b808226269a503c11093101eb939f04d211e1eb784e6423 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 491cbd4d9d611a101b808226269a503c11093101eb939f04d211e1eb784e6423
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (7737a2a) last change: 2015-11-26 Command line :./FedoraReview/try-fedora-review -b 1289738 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(rdieter@math.unl. | |edu) |
--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/plasma-user-manager.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/plasma-user-manager-5.5.0-11.f...
%changelog * Thu Dec 31 2015 Rex Dieter rdieter@fedoraproject.org 5.5.0-11 - License: GPLv2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- Now seems ok, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/plasma-user-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- plasma-user-manager-5.5.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dcae5b09bd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- plasma-user-manager-5.5.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-014c5d0d08
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- plasma-user-manager-5.5.2-1.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-2016-014c5d0d08
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- plasma-user-manager-5.5.2-1.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-dcae5b09bd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- plasma-user-manager-5.5.2-1.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=1289738
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-01-06 23:22:04
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- plasma-user-manager-5.5.2-1.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