[Bug 2324750] New: Review Request: maui-mauikit-pix - Image gallery manager built on the maui framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Bug ID: 2324750 Summary: Review Request: maui-mauikit-pix - Image gallery manager built on the maui framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL: https://mauikit.org/apps/pix/ Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: farchord@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maui-mauikit-pix/maui-mauikit-pix.... SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maui-mauikit-pix/maui-mauikit-pix-...
Description: Image gallery manager built on the maui framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maui-mauikit-pix/maui-mauikit-pix.... SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maui-mauikit-pix/maui-mauikit-pix-...
Description: Image gallery manager built on the maui framework.
Fedora Account System Username: farchord
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maui-mauikit-pix/maui-mauikit-pix.... SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maui-mauikit-pix/maui-mauikit-pix-...
Description: Image gallery manager built on the maui framework.
Fedora Account System Username: farchord
NOTE: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0a4d250538 is required to be installed for the app to start.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tdawson@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tdawson@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
--- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- License issue. I am not seeing any MIT licenses. But I am seeing a LGPL-2.0-or-later license, as well as some files with that license. The LGPL licenses are not tagged with SPDX-License-Identifier, which might be how you missed them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- I totally missed the patch, along with the link explaining the License stuff. Sorry for the noise ... continuing my review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [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 %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. 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]: 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. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|requires_doc_text? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
--- Comment #5 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review, Troy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maui-mauikit-pix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324750
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |COMPLETED Last Closed| |2024-12-03 00:58:43
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com