Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gtk-splitter - A file splitter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Summary: Review Request: gtk-splitter - A file splitter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fabian@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gtk-splitter.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gtk-splitter-2.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
Project URL: http://gtk-splitter.sourceforge.net/
Description: gtk-splitter can split files into smaller pieces and combine them back together. It can also generate a DOS batch file so that the split files can be combined on DOS/Windows systems. gtk-splitter is good for working around file limitations with floppy disks, email attachments, etc.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626394
rpmlint output: [fab@laptop016 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gtk-splitter-2.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[fab@laptop016 x86_64]$ rpmlint gtk-splitter* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Gareth John gareth.l.john@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gareth.l.john@googlemail.co | |m
--- Comment #1 from Gareth John gareth.l.john@googlemail.com 2009-08-25 09:06:51 EDT --- Need to update desktop db for the .desktop file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
%post update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications
%postun update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-25 09:17:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Need to update desktop db for the .desktop file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
"Use this when a desktop entry has a 'MimeType key."
This desktop file doesn't have MimeType key, so the desktop database update is not needed.
However, the categories GNOME and Application should be removed from the desktop file in %install.
**
I wouldn't use docdir=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} \ in %install, I'd just run rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir} and list the necessary files in %doc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Gareth John gareth.l.john@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gareth.l.john@googlemail.co | |m Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #3 from Gareth John gareth.l.john@googlemail.com 2009-08-25 09:31:54 EDT --- You could probably leave Hosts out of doc as well.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zdzichu@irc.pl
--- Comment #4 from Tomasz Torcz zdzichu@irc.pl 2009-08-26 18:09:42 EDT --- I'm not a packager yet (just aspiring), here are my comments: - package is named OK - licensing is OK (GPL2 or later), file is included in %doc - source file location is OK - builds for me on x86_64 - package doesn't include locales nor shared libraries, no special actions needed - package consist code, docs and icon, so it's OK - it's a GUI app, has properly handled .desktop - packaged program works
In short, eveyrthing looks OK.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-08-26 19:02:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
However, the categories GNOME and Application should be removed from the desktop file in %install.
fixed
I wouldn't use docdir=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} \ in %install, I'd just run rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir} and list the necessary files in %doc.
changed
Here are the updated files
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gtk-splitter.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #6 from Gareth John gareth.l.john@googlemail.com 2009-09-11 11:03:08 EDT --- * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review....OK * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines....OK * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption....OK * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines....OK * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines....OK * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license....OK * MUST: 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 must be included in %doc....OK * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English....OK * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.....OK * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.....?? * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture....OK * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line....N/A * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense....OK * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden....N/A * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun....N/A * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker....OK * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory....OK * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings....OK * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line....OK * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)....OK * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros....Each mention in description of {%name} could use the macro!!! * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content....OK * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)....N/A * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present....OK * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package....N/A * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package....N/A * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability)....N/A * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package....N/A * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}....N/A * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built....OK * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation....OK * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time....OK * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)....OK * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8....OK
Approved
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Gareth John gareth.l.john@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Gareth John gareth.l.john@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-09-12 08:46:26 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gtk-splitter Short Description: A file splitter Owners: fab Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-09-14 00:55:07 EDT --- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-14 18:21:24 EDT --- gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-14 18:21:29 EDT --- gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc10
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-15 17:01:15 EDT --- gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gtk-splitter'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-9645
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-15 17:01:35 EDT --- gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gtk-splitter'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-9647
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-30 20:05:43 EDT --- gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |2.2.1-2.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-30 20:06:07 EDT --- gtk-splitter-2.2.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518799
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|2.2.1-2.fc11 |2.2.1-2.fc10
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla