[Bug 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Aug 11 12:54:00 UTC 2011
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724878
Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking at uos.de
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-08-11 08:54:00 EDT ---
Here's the formal review of the package. I'm sorry, there are still a few
things to fix.
- Add a slash between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir} and %{name} in the rm
statements. Currently, the files supposed to be removed are still packaged.
- The package provides qm locale files that must be installed with
%find_lang %{name} --with-qt and %files -f %{name}.lang. However, as they
are located in %{_datadir}/texstudio/ instead of a separate subfolder, it's
a bit complicated to separate them from the other files in that directory.
The qm files must not be added by one of the entries in the %files section.
Also, texstudio seems to bundle Qt locales (qt_FOO.mq). Please ask upstream
if they are modified or if they can be removed so that the original locale
files that come with Qt are used.
- Please use the original spelling "TeXstudio" in the %description
- Ask upstream to add the GPLv3 license text to the qcodeedit folder.
He should also fix the FSF address in COPYING.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
texstudio.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(qcodeedit)
texstudio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/texstudio-2.2/COPYING
texstudio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texstudio/COPYING
texstudio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary texstudio
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.ui
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.ui
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.moc
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.moc
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
---------------------------------
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- GPLv2+ and GPLv3 (bundled and statically linked qcodeedit library)
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum texstudio-2.2.tar.gz*
d23cf71c90f3fd950d49bf480285e920 texstudio-2.2.tar.gz
d23cf71c90f3fd950d49bf480285e920 texstudio-2.2.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
- exception for qcodeedit has been granted
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
- COPYING and AUTHORS packaged twice due to missing slash in
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}%{name}/...
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[X] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
- upstream should add the GPLv3 license text to the qcodeedit dir
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list