[Bug 1079928] New: Review Request: dvblinkremote - Tool for interacting with a DVBLink Connect! Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Bug ID: 1079928 Summary: Review Request: dvblinkremote - Tool for interacting with a DVBLink Connect! Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pikachu.2014@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/dvblinkremote/dvblinkremote.spe... SRPM URL: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/dvblinkremote/dvblinkremote-0.2... Description: A command line tool for interacting with a DVBLink Connect! Server using the DVBLink Remote API. Fedora Account System Username: melmorabity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mike@cchtml.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- 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. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michael/1079928-dvblinkremote/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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 10240 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dvblinkremote-libs , dvblinkremote-devel [x]: 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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: dvblinkremote-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20.x86_64.rpm dvblinkremote-libs-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20.x86_64.rpm dvblinkremote-devel-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20.x86_64.rpm dvblinkremote-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20.src.rpm dvblinkremote.x86_64: W: no-documentation dvblinkremote.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dvblinkremote dvblinkremote-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdvblinkremote dvblinkremote-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dvblinkremote dvblinkremote-devel dvblinkremote-libs dvblinkremote.x86_64: W: no-documentation dvblinkremote.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dvblinkremote dvblinkremote-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dvblinkremote-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdvblinkremote dvblinkremote-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libdvblinkremote.so.0.2.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- dvblinkremote (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libdvblinkremote.so.0.2.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dvblinkremote-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dvblinkremote-libs(x86-64) libcurl-devel libdvblinkremote.so.0.2.0()(64bit)
dvblinkremote-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(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) libtinyxml2.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- dvblinkremote: dvblinkremote dvblinkremote(x86-64)
dvblinkremote-devel: dvblinkremote-devel dvblinkremote-devel(x86-64)
dvblinkremote-libs: dvblinkremote-libs dvblinkremote-libs(x86-64) libdvblinkremote.so.0.2.0()(64bit)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/marefr/dvblinkremote/archive/v0.2.0-beta/dvblinkremote-0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6e5c10b079836fd38f313811575b9cb077f590de116c2aa3b02a80d56ddce292 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e5c10b079836fd38f313811575b9cb077f590de116c2aa3b02a80d56ddce292
Good work. APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Requires: libcurl-devel
Should be
Requires: libcurl-devel%{?_isa}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
--- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com --- Thank you Michael for this review ;).
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
Requires: libcurl-devel
Should be
Requires: libcurl-devel%{?_isa}
Thanks you too Christopher for this comment. This will be fixed once the package imported.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dvblinkremote Short Description: Tool for interacting with a DVBLink Connect! Server Owners: melmorabity Branches: f20 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- dvblinkremote-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dvblinkremote-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- dvblinkremote-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079928
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |dvblinkremote-0.2.0-0.1.bet | |a.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-04-03 00:04:21
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- dvblinkremote-0.2.0-0.1.beta.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla