[Bug 996209] New: Review Request: Knotter - is a free and open source customizable interlace designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Bug ID: 996209 Summary: Review Request: Knotter - is a free and open source customizable interlace designer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ib54003@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/knotter/f19/knotter.spec SRPM URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/knotter/f19/knotter-0.9.4-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: Interlace patterns are a kind of design historically used as a decorations in many places and by different cultures. Some examples are Celtic knotworks and Islamic interlaces. Knotter aims to allow its user to intuitively design such patterns and to provide easy ways to integrate the result in external general-purpose graphic software for this purpose designs created within Knotter can be saved in a custom Human-Readable format and exported as scalable vector graphics and in a wide number of raster image formats.
Fedora Account System Username: ib54003
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Version|19 |rawhide Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mhroncok@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org)
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- 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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
You should add README and COPYING and AUTHORS to %doc
- %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
- Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
- name-repeated-in-summary is relevant
===== 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. [!]: %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. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
I'm not quite sure, if having code in datadir is a good idea. Consider finding a way to stor plugins in libdir instead, if possible
[-]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 21217280 bytes in /usr/share 21217280 knotter-0.9.4-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guid... [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: knotter-0.9.4-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm knotter-0.9.4-1.fc18.src.rpm knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization knotter.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Knotter knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knotworks -> notworks, k notworks, knot works knotter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization knotter.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Knotter knotter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knotworks -> notworks, k notworks, knot works knotter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
[!] name-repeated-in-summary is relevant
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint knotter knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization knotter.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Knotter knotter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US knotworks -> notworks, k notworks, knot works 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- knotter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtScript.so.4()(64bit) libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(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)
Provides -------- knotter: knotter knotter(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/knotter/0.9/knotter-0.9.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5e5fbda3b051f3724f9aa6e5c1223626f4a8147c6f4ce8a7de245780dba0716b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e5fbda3b051f3724f9aa6e5c1223626f4a8147c6f4ce8a7de245780dba0716b
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (eaf16cd) last change: 2013-05-30 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 996209
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ needinfo+ |needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org) |
--- Comment #2 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/knotter/f19/knotter.spec SRPM URL: http://ib54003.fedorapeople.org/rpm/knotter/f19/knotter-0.9.4-2.fc19.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Christoph Wickert cwickert@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ needinfo+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org)
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- You forgot something ;)
- Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
- name-repeated-in-summary is relevant
What about the FHS?
And the CFLAGS thing is not relevant, sorry.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: Knotter - |Review Request: knotter - A |is a free and open source |free and open source |customizable interlace |customizable interlace |designer |designer
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Please change summary to:
A free and open source customizable interlace designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC| |luya@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
--- Comment #13 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Are you still interested in this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org) |
--- Comment #14 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54003@fedoraproject.org --- Hi, sorry i was busy. Yes I am, i hope i can finish it today :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org)
--- Comment #15 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- You ahven't reacted in one month. This review is now stalled and a response is needed soon.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org) | Last Closed| |2014-01-03 05:43:51
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla