https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160475
Bug ID: 1160475 Summary: Review Request: tikzit - Diagram editor for pgf/TikZ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: spacewar@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/tikzit/tikzit.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/tikzit/tikzit-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: TikZiT is a graphical tool for rapidly creating an editing node-and-edge style graphs. It was originally created to aid in the typesetting of "dot" diagrams of interacting quantum observables, but can be used as a general graph editing program. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160475
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mattia.verga@tiscali.it Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mattia.verga@tiscali.it Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- I'm starting a formal review of this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160475
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- APPROVED
Please fix the %{_datadir}/%{name}/shapes to %{_datadir}/%{name} before importing in CVS and ask upstream to fix license stuff.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license.
License GPLv3 is correct, however the COPYING file provided is GPLv2, looks like a mistake,
ask upstream to fix this in their source control
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/tikzit [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/tikzit
You can change %{_datadir}/%{name}/shapes to %{_datadir}/%{name}
[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. [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. [-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in tikzit [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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 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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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.
Ask upstream to include license file
[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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: 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. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: tikzit-1.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm tikzit-1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit tikzit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tikzit-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pgf -> pg, pf, pg f tikzit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US observables -> observable, observable s, observably tikzit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tikzit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- tikzit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnustep-base.so.1.24()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libobjc.so.4()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- tikzit: application() application(tikzit.desktop) tikzit tikzit(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sf.net/tikzit/tikzit-1.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccd1cc689927428074e2f029d88bd70da28a8426f4a920e43efe38a03a206f1d
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1160475 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160475
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |spacewar@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(spacewar@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- Eric, the package was approved, you can proceed with the SCM request if you want.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160475
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review+ | |needinfo?(spacewar@gmail.co | |m) | Last Closed| |2015-12-02 14:10:14
--- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it --- No response from the submitter.
Closing. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_n...
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160475
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|mattia.verga@tiscali.it |nobody@fedoraproject.org
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla