[Bug 1176307] New: Review Request: torrent-file-editor - Qt based GUI tool designed to create and edit .torrent files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Bug ID: 1176307 Summary: Review Request: torrent-file-editor - Qt based GUI tool designed to create and edit .torrent files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: drizt@land.ru QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drizt/torrent-file-editor-package/87420ce0... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8430/8448430/torrent-file-edi... Description: Qt based GUI tool designed to create and edit .torrent files.
Fedora Account System Username: ivanromanov Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8448429
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |projects.rg@smart.ms Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |projects.rg@smart.ms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Hi Ivan,
there are some hints for your spec file. Please fix those, then I can continue with the review.
* Use macros whereever possible. Don't use a slash at the end of the URL. You can use just 'sf' as abbreviation 'sourceforge'.
- URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/torrent-file-editor/ + URL: http://sf.net/projects/%%7Bname%7D
- Source0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/%%7Bname%7D/files/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D... + Source0: %{url}/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
* MUST 'Require: hicolor-icon-theme' cause of the folder ownership. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#...
%files … %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png
* SHOULD tell us more about your package in %description. Consider to write about the features as mentioned so at the sourceforge page.
* SHOULD directly get the source tarball from github without using sourceforge https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Gi...
* Additional question: Why do you not use Qt5 also in Fedora, like you do for the tree product? Fedora 21 has Qt5 packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1)
Hi Ivan,
there are some hints for your spec file. Please fix those, then I can continue with the review.
- Use macros whereever possible. Don't use a slash at the end of the URL.
You can use just 'sf' as abbreviation 'sourceforge'.
Fixed.
- Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/%%7Bname%7D/files/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D...
- Source0: %{url}/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
It's not correct. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#So...
- MUST 'Require: hicolor-icon-theme' cause of the folder ownership.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
%files … %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png
Fixed.
- SHOULD tell us more about your package in %description. Consider to write
about the features as mentioned so at the sourceforge page.
Fixed.
- SHOULD directly get the source tarball from github without using
sourceforge https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Github
It's not correct.
If the upstream does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages.
In this case upstream creates tarballs. So I use them.
- Additional question: Why do you not use Qt5 also in Fedora, like you do
for the tree product? Fedora 21 has Qt5 packages.
Qt4 now is main. Qt5 only for development as I understand. Anyway Qt5 variant looks ugly. I don't want to use it. When Qt5 become stable I will transtition to it.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drizt/torrent-file-editor-package/717d16eb... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8973/8448973/torrent-file-edi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- wrong previous srpm url
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drizt/torrent-file-editor-package/717d16eb... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8790/8448790/torrent-file-edi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Issues: =======
- delete some files in %prep section, they are obviously not needed for a Fedora package, licensecheck says: Unknown or generated -------------------- torrent-file-editor-0.1.0/.project.el torrent-file-editor-0.1.0/build-nsis.sh torrent-file-editor-0.1.0/build.sh (also the MacOS* file(s) could be removed to not come in the way somehow)
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in torrent-file-editor See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache ===> use also the %posttrans section for gtk-update-icon-cache, is there any reason to not do here?
- 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 torrent-file-editor See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database
===== 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 (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora- review/1176307-torrent-file-editor/licensecheck.txt ===> Please remove those files without any license cause not needed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. ===> Where do you (as upstream) have all the icons from? Are those GPL'ed? [-]: 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]: 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: [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. [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. [x]: %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 (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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm torrent-file-editor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codings -> coding, comings, copings torrent-file-editor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary torrent-file-editor torrent-file-editor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codings -> coding, comings, copings 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
===> OK
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint torrent-file-editor torrent-file-editor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codings -> coding, comings, copings torrent-file-editor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary torrent-file-editor 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
===> OK
Requires -------- torrent-file-editor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libqjson.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- torrent-file-editor: application() application(torrent-file-editor.desktop) mimehandler(application/x-bittorrent) torrent-file-editor torrent-file-editor(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/torrent-file-editor/torrent-file-editor-0.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 250a4da24f110b27d7652feb7a10079917372bb4bd9b20886f561c0a2865a8f2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 250a4da24f110b27d7652feb7a10079917372bb4bd9b20886f561c0a2865a8f2
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --verbose -b 1176307 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- The torrentfileeditor.nsis file is also not needed for a Fedora package, so SHOULD be removed also.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #6 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #5)
The torrentfileeditor.nsis file is also not needed for a Fedora package, so SHOULD be removed also.
There is it in packaging guidlines? I couldn't find.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #7 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- * Sun Dec 21 2014 Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru - 0.1.0-3 - corrected updating icon cache - added updating MIME type database
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drizt/torrent-file-editor-package/4a02a507... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5518/8455518/torrent-file-edi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- APPROVED.
Sorry for the long delay.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Ivan Romanov drizt@land.ru --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: torrent-file-editor Short Description: Qt based GUI tool designed to create and edit .torrent files Upstream URL: http://sf.net/projects/torrent-file-editor Owners: ivanromanov Branches: f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #10 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3 | |.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-01-12 18:59:03
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3 |torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3 |.fc21 |.fc20
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.2.0-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/torrent-file-editor-0.2.0-2.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3 |torrent-file-editor-0.2.0-2 |.fc20 |.el7
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- torrent-file-editor-0.2.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla