[Bug 1070559] New: Review Request: urbanlightscape - Photo filter for dynamic lighting and exposure correction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
Bug ID: 1070559 Summary: Review Request: urbanlightscape - Photo filter for dynamic lighting and exposure correction Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cickumqt@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/urbanlightscape.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/urbanlightscape-1.3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Urban Lightscape is a photo filter for exposure correction, localized brightness adjustments, dodging and burning, and the introduction of synthetic lighting to a photo. A simple "double-click-and-drag" paradigm is used to place control points on a photo, and clever edge detection localises and interpolates lightness adjustments around and between these points. Results are rapid, with additional controls for more subtle refinements. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |nonamedotc@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nonamedotc@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- This software looks interesting to me.
I will take it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
--- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- One issue I can see is update-desktop-database is missing in %postun.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #2)
One issue I can see is update-desktop-database is missing in %postun.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
Yes it was a copy and paste error, but have you found other issues? If not I will upload again and please approve.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Looking at the spec file again, I **think** you would also need
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
If not, there will be complaints that directory is not owned?
I am running fedora-review now. Can you please update the spec file? Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Also, do you know the license of this image? - http://www.indii.org/images/%%7Bname%7D_128.png
I looked in the website but could not find any specific license for the images .... I think
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5)
Also, do you know the license of this image? - http://www.indii.org/images/%%7Bname%7D_128.png
I looked in the website but could not find any specific license for the images .... I think
This icon is generated by upstream, I don't think he needs to clarify the license.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/urbanlightscape.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/urbanlightscape-1.3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
This icon is generated by upstream, I don't think he needs to clarify the license.
I tend to agree here - was just clarifying.
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]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1070559-urbanlightscape/licensecheck.txt
---> This is fine.
[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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in urbanlightscape [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in urbanlightscape [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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 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: [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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: urbanlightscape-1.3.2-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm urbanlightscape-1.3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm urbanlightscape.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US localises -> localities, localizes urbanlightscape.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urbanlightscape urbanlightscape.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US localises -> localities, localizes 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint urbanlightscape urbanlightscape.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US localises -> localities, localizes urbanlightscape.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary urbanlightscape 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- urbanlightscape (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_richtext-2.8.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.8.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- urbanlightscape: application() application(urbanlightscape.desktop) mimehandler(image/gif) mimehandler(image/jpeg) mimehandler(image/png) mimehandler(image/tiff) mimehandler(image/x-bmp) mimehandler(image/x-pcx) mimehandler(image/x-portable-pixmap) mimehandler(image/x-targa) mimehandler(image/x-xpm) urbanlightscape urbanlightscape(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.indii.org/images/urbanlightscape_128.png : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acf42e26ab0c0b274e74f060ad9c1dc3e01ae6e84de5ff0e0233db9b7efa849c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acf42e26ab0c0b274e74f060ad9c1dc3e01ae6e84de5ff0e0233db9b7efa849c http://www.indii.org/files/urbanlightscape/releases/urbanlightscape-1.3.2.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74a39248711b40532d2f4f6d46f6701eb89563d30e4db628a9254a855a0d4fee CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74a39248711b40532d2f4f6d46f6701eb89563d30e4db628a9254a855a0d4fee
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1070559 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
*** PACKAGE APPROVED ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Thank you!!!
If you have time, you can review another package released by this upstream: bug 1070549. Nearly same as this one.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: urbanlightscape Short Description: Photo filter for dynamic lighting and exposure correction Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
--- Comment #10 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Can we close this review request now since the package is already built in rawhide? All good?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |urbanlightscape-1.3.3-1.fc2 | |3 | |urbanlightscape-1.3.3-1.fc2 | |2 | |urbanlightscape-1.3.3-1.fc2 | |1 | |urbanlightscape-1.3.3-1.fc2 | |0 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2015-02-25 22:14:17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559
Richard Hughes rhughes@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rhughes@redhat.com
--- Comment #11 from Richard Hughes rhughes@redhat.com --- No AppData? It's not going to appear in the software center as it stands.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla