[Bug 1019435] New: Review Request: fluid - Library for fluid and dynamic applications development with QtQuick
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Bug ID: 1019435 Summary: Review Request: fluid - Library for fluid and dynamic applications development with QtQuick Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lkundrak@v3.sk QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/fluid.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/fluid-0.1.90-1.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Library for fluid and dynamic applications development with QtQuick.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |echevemaster@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Hi @Lkundrak:
- Can you handle the Source url, under this scheme? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github.
- Not is a blocker, but pkgconfig retrieve slowly dependencies, I would use the name of the devel-packages
- Why do you use ldconfig? I can't see any lib in $LDPATH root
- Please , don't use rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT after %install, It is just for el5 packaging, Same applies for %defattr(-,root,root,-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- Hi, thank you for your suggestions.
(In reply to Eduardo Echeverria from comment #1)
Hi @Lkundrak:
- Can you handle the Source url, under this scheme?
I can not; that document is not up to date. Github no longer allows adding files to archive, nor provides a way to retrieve a sanely named tagged snapshot. I've raised a ticket about that to github, and there isn't much I could do about that until they fix their thing.
- Not is a blocker, but pkgconfig retrieve slowly dependencies, I would use
the name of the devel-packages
The build system looks for pkgconfig files, so this is definitely more correct. It does not appear slow to me -- if it is slow for you it should probably be fixed in RPM instead.
- Why do you use ldconfig? I can't see any lib in $LDPATH root
No good reason, I'll remove it.
- Please , don't use rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT after %install, It is just for
el5 packaging, Same applies for %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Will do.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
--- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/fluid.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |echevemaster@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- @Lkundrak, Please fix the rpmlint warning before import
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/echevemaster/test- packages-fedora/1019435-fluid/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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: [-]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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: fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc21.x86_64.rpm fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc21.src.rpm fluid.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C fluid fluid.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C fluid fluid.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fluid.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint fluid fluid.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C fluid 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- fluid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) qt5-qtdeclarative qt5-qtquickcontrols rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- fluid: fluid fluid(x86-64) libdeclarative_fluidextra.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- fluid: /usr/lib64/hawaii/qml/FluidExtra/libdeclarative_fluidextra.so
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1019435 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
PACKAGE APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- Thanks!
(In reply to Eduardo Echeverria from comment #4)
@Lkundrak, Please fix the rpmlint warning before import
<snip>
fluid.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C fluid
I believe that's a false positive -- this is not repeated as a name of package, merely just as an adjective.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fluid Short Description: Library for fluid and dynamic applications development with QtQuick Owners: lkundrak Branches: f20 el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2013-10-30 13:25:46
--- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel lkundrak@v3.sk --- Imported and built. Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019435
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6 | |d6e0cd.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2013-10-30 13:25:46 |2013-11-10 01:05:47
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- fluid-0.1.90-2.20130723git6d6e0cd.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla