Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: pino - A fast, easy and free Twitter client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550139
Summary: Review Request: pino - A fast, easy and free Twitter client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: allisson@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc12.src.r...
Description: A fast, easy and free Twitter client
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=550139
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fabian@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-12-23 18:08:36 EDT --- Just some quick comments on your spec file.
- You need to add 'hicolor-icon-theme' as a requirement to avoid issues with the ownership of the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory - Please follow the guidelines for the installation of the .desktop file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files - Can you please take a look at your BRs . Isn't gettext needed by intltool and didn't libgee-devel pulls in libgee.
The rpmlint output
[fab@localhost i686]$ rpmlint pino* pino-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 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=550139
--- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allisson@gmail.com 2009-12-28 12:21:02 EDT --- Update package:
Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-0.2.rc3.fc12.src.r...
Changes:
- Update to 0.1.0rc3 - Fix BR - Added desktop file validate for pino.desktop
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=550139
--- Comment #3 from Allisson Azevedo allisson@gmail.com 2009-12-29 12:01:15 EDT --- Update package:
Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
Changes:
- Update to 0.1.0
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=550139
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cwickert@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |cwickert@fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2010-01-02 21:10:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
- You need to add 'hicolor-icon-theme' as a requirement to avoid issues with
the ownership of the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory
Requiring hicolor-icon-theme is not strictly needed because gtk2 already requires it. It is however recommended.
- Can you please take a look at your BRs . Isn't gettext needed by intltool
not on older releases such as EPEL, so I suggest to leave it in.
The rpmlint output
[fab@localhost i686]$ rpmlint pino* pino-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
This one is fixed in with the new package.
(In reply to comment #3)
- Update to 0.1.0
Please update to 0.1.1 and then I will review the package. Some more comments:
- Timestamps of both the spec and the source are one year in the future. Please take care of the timestamps, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
- (Try to) Use Fedoras waf instead of the included version to build the package.
- %description should be more detailed and end with a dot.
- Don't hardcode /usr in --prefix=/usr. Use the %{_prefix} macro instead, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
- You could use a few more wildcards: Instead of
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/mentions.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/timeline.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/pino.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/pino_fresh.svg
use
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/*/*.svg
But this is minor and up to you. The rest looks fine, package works as described. Looking forward to see it in Fedora.
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=550139
--- Comment #5 from Allisson Azevedo allisson@gmail.com 2010-01-03 22:40:22 EDT --- Update package:
Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
Changes:
- Update to 0.1.1 - Using waf as BR - Updated description - Using rpmmacros in build section
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=550139
--- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org 2010-01-04 08:10:07 EDT --- OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/pino-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} FIX - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3+) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 005215400dcd00844558fbbe9b30fc46 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 N/A - 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. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang 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. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. FIX - MUST: consistently uses macros: %{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - 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'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly validated with desktop-file-validate in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete OK - docs complete
Issues: - The timestamp of Source0 still doesn't match SourceURL. Please use a download manager that preserves timestamps, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
- Build is not verbose, please use "waf build -v"
- You are not using parallel make, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make
- your macro usage is not consistent. You are using both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Please only use one.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla