[Bug 683150] Review Request: yad - Display graphical dialogs from shell scripts or command line
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jun 27 00:20:40 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=683150
Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |cwickert at fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cwickert at fedoraproject.org
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 2011-06-26 20:20:38 EDT ---
Hi Raghu,
thanks for looking at this package.
(In reply to comment #2)
> - BuildRoot tag is not required any more :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
>
> - %clean section not required for F13 and above
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
None of them are required, however there is nothing wrong with having them in
the spec for compatibility with older rpm versions as we have them e.g. in
EPEL.
(In reply to comment #3)
> - The URL is correct. I don't know why this happens..
It's a bug in rpmlint and happens to all googlecode projects. spectool works
fine:
$ spectool -g yad.spec
Getting http://yad.googlecode.com/files/yad-0.12.3.tar.xz to
./yad-0.12.3.tar.xz
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 141k 100 141k 0 0 309k 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 339k
REVIEW of b5c4bbc2bad037a133d80fc6a4466a72 yad-0.12.3-1.fc15.src.rpm
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/yad-*
yad.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dialogs -> dialog, dialog s
yad.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zenity -> zenith
yad.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dialogs -> dialog, dialog s
yad.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dialogs -> dialog, dialog s
yad.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zenity -> zenith
yad.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dialogs -> dialog, dialog s
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/progress.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/icons.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/form.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/calendar.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/option.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/util.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/text.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/list.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/entry.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/yad.h
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/file.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/scale.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/color.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/browser.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/about.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/main.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/dnd.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/font.c
yad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/yad-0.12.3/src/notification.c
yad-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
yad-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yad-icon-browser
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 19 errors, 8 warnings.
All these can be ignored.
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines
FIX - MUST: License field in spec file does not match the actual license: If
you look into the headers of the source code you will see "or (at your option)
any later version." This means GPLv3+ rather than GPLv3
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
FIX - MUST: spec is legible: it is legible, but could be a little better.
-- Please only indent lines if a command from the previous line continues.
Lines 47, 51, 53, 55 and 65 should not be indented.
-- Line 45 is indented with 8 spaces, other only use 4. Please use the same
indention all the time.
-- Please use the full length of a line for the description, up to 80
characters
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5
4f745b58672dbfb23b96e319bdf49c96
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates (none)
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg:
OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
OK - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
Well... - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
Things that need fixing:
- You don't need no yad-devel package. Drop the m4 file and move the
icon-browser to the base package.
- Fix license tag, see above
- Fix formatting, see above
- Please don't use macros for simple things like %{__rm} or %{__make}. You
never know if/how they are defined.
- The file AUTHORS needs to be in %doc
- Don't specify the manpage with extension. We might switch from gz to another
compression method. %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.* is fine.
Things that should eventually be fixed:
- Bring back BuildRoot and %clean for compatibility.
- Get in touch with touch with upstream and tell him that the FSF address is
outdated. Even better: Provide a patch.
--
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