[Bug 1177926] New: Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Bug ID: 1177926
           Summary: Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible,
                    user-friendly chat client
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi-0.11-1.fc21.src.rpm

Description: 
Smuxi is an open-source, powerful, flexible, and user-friendly chat client
created by Mirco Bauer and developed by other contributors. 
Inspired by the combination of screen and irssi, Smuxi has a detachable server 
(or like a "normal" client) that stays connected when you aren't, and 
can allow multiple Smuxi front-ends (like the GNOME front-end, or 
STFL text-based front-end) to be connected and in sync. 
This is similar to screen+irssi or IRC bouncers, but more elegant and powerful.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Antonio Trande  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
*** Bug 1033413 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng  ---
Thanks for doing this, I actually wanted to leave a reply at the original bug,
but I was taking exams.

It'd be better to see my original spec as well, although I still manage to
restore it from my SSD.

Just a note, I don't want to see a SUSE style package, I know this has been
pushed to SUSE repo, but I think there are too many subpackages.

Thanks!

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng  ---
Here is the origin:

http://awk.io/smuxi.spec

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #4 from MartinKG  ---
will you take the spec file from Christopher, and update it ?

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to MartinKG from comment #4)
> will you take the spec file from Christopher, and update it ?

No. We can start from mine.

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #6 from MartinKG  ---
a quick review.
1. rpmlint smuxi-0.11-1.fc21.src.rpm

smuxi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI, sir
smuxi.src:73: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
smuxi.src:110: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}
smuxi.src:111: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome.exe*
smuxi.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend.dll*
smuxi.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-irc.dll*
smuxi.src:114: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-twitter.dll*
smuxi.src:115: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-xmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:116: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-server.exe*
smuxi.src:127: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Db4objects.Db4o.dll*
smuxi.src:128: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine.dll*
smuxi.src:129: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-common.dll*
smuxi.src:130: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-campfire.dll*
smuxi.src:131: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/ServiceStack.*.dll*
smuxi.src:132: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-irc.dll*
smuxi.src:133: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Meebey.SmartIrc4net.dll*
smuxi.src:134: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-jabbr.dll*
smuxi.src:135: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/JabbR.Client.dll*
smuxi.src:136: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Microsoft.AspNet.SignalR.Client.dll*
smuxi.src:137: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-twitter.dll*
smuxi.src:138: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Newtonsoft.Json.dll*
smuxi.src:139: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Twitterizer2.dll*
smuxi.src:140: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-xmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:141: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/agsxmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:142: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/StarkSoftProxy.dll*
smuxi.src:146: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/smuxi/smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe
smuxi.src:147: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/smuxi/smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe.config
smuxi.src:153: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-common.pc
smuxi.src:154: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-engine-irc.pc
smuxi.src:155: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-engine.pc
smuxi.src:156: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-frontend.pc
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 30 errors, 1 warnings.

A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

Solution:- Don't hardcode path in SPEC rather use macros.

2. the source package contains various types of License and must be corrected.

[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD
     (3 clause)", "BSD", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 1798 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

MartinKG  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

Don't forget that this is based on Mono:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono#File_Locations

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #8 from MartinKG  ---
I'm doing an informal review. So whoever does the actual review please let me
know whatever i did wrong.
I used fedora-review to generate the report and made some manual checks.

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: 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:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD
     (3 clause)", "BSD", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 1798 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/1177926-smuxi/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/lib/pkgconfig,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/lib/smuxi, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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 smuxi
[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 20480 bytes in 8 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in smuxi-
     engine , smuxi-frontend-stfl , smuxi-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil}
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1382400 bytes in /usr/share
[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: smuxi-0.11-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          smuxi-engine-0.11-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          smuxi-frontend-stfl-0.11-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          smuxi-devel-0.11-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          smuxi-0.11-1.fc22.src.rpm
smuxi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI, sir
smuxi.x86_64: E: no-binary
smuxi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
smuxi-engine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI,
sir
smuxi-engine.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
smuxi-engine.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/smuxi-engine/LICENSE
smuxi-frontend-stfl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi ->
IRS, RSI, sir
smuxi-frontend-stfl.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
smuxi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pc -> PC, p, c
smuxi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI,
sir
smuxi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pc -> PC, p, c
smuxi-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/smuxi-devel/LICENSE
smuxi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI, sir
smuxi.src:73: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
smuxi.src:110: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}
smuxi.src:111: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome.exe*
smuxi.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend.dll*
smuxi.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-irc.dll*
smuxi.src:114: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-twitter.dll*
smuxi.src:115: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-xmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:116: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-server.exe*
smuxi.src:127: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Db4objects.Db4o.dll*
smuxi.src:128: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine.dll*
smuxi.src:129: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-common.dll*
smuxi.src:130: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-campfire.dll*
smuxi.src:131: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/ServiceStack.*.dll*
smuxi.src:132: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-irc.dll*
smuxi.src:133: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Meebey.SmartIrc4net.dll*
smuxi.src:134: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-jabbr.dll*
smuxi.src:135: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/JabbR.Client.dll*
smuxi.src:136: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Microsoft.AspNet.SignalR.Client.dll*
smuxi.src:137: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-twitter.dll*
smuxi.src:138: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Newtonsoft.Json.dll*
smuxi.src:139: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Twitterizer2.dll*
smuxi.src:140: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-xmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:141: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/agsxmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:142: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/StarkSoftProxy.dll*
smuxi.src:146: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/smuxi/smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe
smuxi.src:147: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/smuxi/smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe.config
smuxi.src:153: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-common.pc
smuxi.src:154: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-engine-irc.pc
smuxi.src:155: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-engine.pc
smuxi.src:156: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-frontend.pc
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 33 errors, 10 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
^[]0;<mock-chroot>^G<mock-chroot>[root@fc21 /]# rpmlint smuxi-devel smuxi
smuxi-frontend-stfl smuxi-engine
smuxi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pc -> PC, p, c
smuxi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI,
Sir
smuxi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pc -> PC, p, c
smuxi-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/smuxi-devel/LICENSE
smuxi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI, Sir
smuxi.x86_64: E: no-binary
smuxi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
smuxi-frontend-stfl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi ->
IRS, RSI, Sir
smuxi-frontend-stfl.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
smuxi-engine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi -> IRS, RSI,
Sir
smuxi-engine.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
smuxi-engine.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/smuxi-engine/LICENSE
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 9 warnings.
^[]0;<mock-chroot>^G<mock-chroot>[root@fc21 /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
smuxi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

smuxi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    mono(Mono.Posix)
    mono(System)
    mono(System.Core)
    mono(System.Runtime.Remoting)
    mono(System.Web)
    mono(dbus-sharp)
    mono(dbus-sharp-glib)
    mono(gdk-sharp)
    mono(glade-sharp)
    mono(glib-sharp)
    mono(gtk-sharp)
    mono(log4net)
    mono(mscorlib)
    mono(notify-sharp)
    mono(pango-sharp)
    mono(smuxi-common)
    mono(smuxi-engine)
    mono(smuxi-engine-irc)
    mono(smuxi-engine-twitter)
    mono(smuxi-engine-xmpp)
    mono(smuxi-frontend)
    mono(smuxi-frontend-gnome)
    smuxi-engine(x86-64)

smuxi-frontend-stfl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    mono(Mono.Posix)
    mono(System)
    mono(System.Core)
    mono(log4net)
    mono(mscorlib)
    mono(smuxi-common)
    mono(smuxi-engine)
    mono(smuxi-frontend)
    smuxi-engine(x86-64)

smuxi-engine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mono(Db4objects.Db4o)
    mono(JabbR.Client)
    mono(Meebey.SmartIrc4net)
    mono(Microsoft.AspNet.SignalR.Client)
    mono(Mono.Posix)
    mono(Newtonsoft.Json)
    mono(ServiceStack.Common)
    mono(ServiceStack.Interfaces)
    mono(ServiceStack.Text)
    mono(StarkSoftProxy)
    mono(System)
    mono(System.Core)
    mono(System.Data)
    mono(System.Data.Linq)
    mono(System.Drawing)
    mono(System.Runtime.Serialization)
    mono(System.Web)
    mono(System.Xml)
    mono(System.Xml.Linq)
    mono(Twitterizer2)
    mono(agsxmpp)
    mono(log4net)
    mono(mscorlib)
    mono(nini)
    mono(smuxi-common)
    mono(smuxi-engine)
Provides
--------
smuxi-devel:
    smuxi-devel
    smuxi-devel(x86-64)

smuxi:
    application()
    application(smuxi-frontend-gnome.desktop)
    mono(smuxi-frontend)
    mono(smuxi-frontend-gnome)
    mono(smuxi-frontend-gnome-irc)
    mono(smuxi-frontend-gnome-twitter)
    mono(smuxi-frontend-gnome-xmpp)
    mono(smuxi-server)
    smuxi
    smuxi(x86-64)

smuxi-frontend-stfl:
    mono(smuxi-frontend-stfl)
    smuxi-frontend-stfl
    smuxi-frontend-stfl(x86-64)

smuxi-engine:
    mono(Db4objects.Db4o)
    mono(JabbR.Client)
    mono(Meebey.SmartIrc4net)
    mono(Microsoft.AspNet.SignalR.Client)
    mono(Newtonsoft.Json)
    mono(ServiceStack.Common)
    mono(ServiceStack.Interfaces)
    mono(ServiceStack.Text)
    mono(StarkSoftProxy)
    mono(Twitterizer2)
    mono(agsxmpp)
    mono(smuxi-common)
    mono(smuxi-engine)
    mono(smuxi-engine-campfire)
    mono(smuxi-engine-irc)
    mono(smuxi-engine-jabbr)
    mono(smuxi-engine-twitter)
    mono(smuxi-engine-xmpp)
    smuxi-engine
    smuxi-engine(x86-64)

Source checksums
----------------
https://smuxi.im/jaws/data/files/smuxi-0.11.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
08797bb6d09b3c97cebaf63935a02525b41d12cee09d21e79775283a9286f5b2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
08797bb6d09b3c97cebaf63935a02525b41d12cee09d21e79775283a9286f5b2

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1177926
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Antonio Trande  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande  ---
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi-0.11-2.fc21.src.rpm

Fixed licenses.

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

MartinKG  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #10 from MartinKG  ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: Cannot find APACHE-LICENSE-2.0.txt in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

===== 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:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD
     (3 clause)", "BSD", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 1798 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/1177926-smuxi/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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/lib/pkgconfig,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/lib/smuxi, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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 smuxi
[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 20480 bytes in 8 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]: 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]: 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

I found no critical issues, package approved.

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande  ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: smuxi
Short Description: Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
Upstream URL: https://smuxi.im
Owners: sagitter
Branches: f21 f20

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Antonio Trande  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-cvs?

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng  ---
Please add me as a co maintainer, thanks.

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #12)
> Please add me as a co maintainer, thanks.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: smuxi
Short Description: Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
Upstream URL: https://smuxi.im
Owners: sagitter cicku
Branches: f21 f20

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #15 from Mirco Bauer  ---
The current package split is problematic. It doesn't allow a console frontend
only install without installing X11/GNOME packages. Also a smuxi-server only
install without X11/GNOME packages is not possible.

Please re-evaluate my recommended package split:

* smuxi-engine
  * smuxi-engine* libraries (the engine has plugins thus the wildcard is
important)
  * bin/smuxi-server
  * smuxi-server.exe*
  * man1/smuxi-server.1
  * all other private libraries (SmartIrcr4net, Twitterizer, ServiceStack, etc)

* smuxi-frontend-gnome
  * bin/smuxi-frontend-gnome
  * smuxi-frontend-gnome* (this frontend has plugins thus the wildcard is
important)
  * man1/smuxi-frontend-gnome.1

* smuxi-frontend-stfl
  * bin/smuxi-frontend-stfl
  * smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe*
  * man1/smuxi-frontend-stfl.1

This the smallest possible split that still allows to install a) server-only
without X11/GUI dependencies, b) just the GNOME frontend c) just the console
frontend (without X11/GUI)

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Mirco Bauer from comment #15)
> The current package split is problematic. It doesn't allow a console
> frontend only install without installing X11/GNOME packages. Also a
> smuxi-server only install without X11/GNOME packages is not possible.
>
> Please re-evaluate my recommended package split:
> smuxi-engine
> smuxi-engine* libraries (the engine has plugins thus the wildcard is
>
> important)
> bin/smuxi-server
> smuxi-server.exe*
> man1/smuxi-server.1
> all other private libraries (SmartIrcr4net, Twitterizer, ServiceStack,
>
> etc)
> smuxi-frontend-gnome
> bin/smuxi-frontend-gnome
> smuxi-frontend-gnome* (this frontend has plugins thus the wildcard is
>
> important)
>
> man1/smuxi-frontend-gnome.1
>
> smuxi-frontend-stfl
> bin/smuxi-frontend-stfl
> smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe*
> man1/smuxi-frontend-stfl.1
>
> This the smallest possible split that still allows to install a) server-only
> without X11/GUI dependencies, b) just the GNOME frontend c) just the console
> frontend (without X11/GUI)

Is it okay for you? --> https://www.diffchecker.com/5mm6aq3b

I wish keep smuxi, smuxi-engine, smuxi-stfl packages.

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #17 from Mirco Bauer  ---
I explained 2 times why my proposal is the optimal solution. I am not going to
invest more time on this. Do whatever is right for Fedora. Disclaimer: I don't
know the criteria Fedora uses to split packages, I only do know those
practice/rules for Debian.

Nonetheless, thank you a lot for caring for Smuxi and packaging it for Fedora!

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Mirco Bauer from comment #17)
> I explained 2 times why my proposal is the optimal solution. I am not going
> to invest more time on this. Do whatever is right for Fedora. Disclaimer: I
> don't know the criteria Fedora uses to split packages, I only do know those
> practice/rules for Debian.
>
> Nonetheless, thank you a lot for caring for Smuxi and packaging it for
> Fedora!

My intention was not underestimate what you say.
I modified package according to your advices:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/smuxi.git/tree/smuxi.spec

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smuxi-0.11-3.fc20

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
smuxi-0.11-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smuxi-0.11-3.fc21

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

--- Comment #21 from Mirco Bauer  ---
Thank you!

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |smuxi-0.11-3.fc20
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2015-02-03 07:03:29

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|smuxi-0.11-3.fc20           |smuxi-0.11-3.fc21

--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
smuxi-0.11-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.