https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg(a)smart.ms Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I'm really sorry for letting this sit for several months! Can you upload the SRPM to a more permanent place than koji, and I'll take another look? Your build was deleted. But generally, it seems as though there are lots of bundled node libraries under "./extension_tools/node_modules" in the archive. It would be nice to be able to unbundle them, but if not you must add bundled provides as described here to the spec. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Lib... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #6 from jan(a)kcore.org --- I've submitted a new build to koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26311309 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #8 from jan(a)kcore.org --- I'm sorry - I seem to have pasted the wrong koji url. This one is correct for the latest build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26312199 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #10 from jan(a)kcore.org --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdeluyck/notepadqq-packaging/master/Fed... SRPM URL: https://kcore.org/tmp/notepadqq-1.3.6-1.fc27.src.rpm Updates: - Removed nodejs-shelljs and nodejs-archiver, only adm-zip is left (since this is not available in Fedora) - Updated license - Updated to version 1.3.6 - fixed some rpmlint warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #12 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Oh, actually, I missed one thing. notepadqq appears to have recently gained an appstream metadata file: https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq/blob/master/support_files/notepadq... You should install this using appstream-util. Take a look at this wiki page for information: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData This will cause notepadqq to show up in Gnome Software (among other places). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #14 from jan(a)kcore.org --- (In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #12) I've updated the SPEC file, but I'm a bit stuck on what to do with the appdata.xml. I've added a patch to make it valid (I'll take this upstream), but installing it seems to hit a snag: appstream-util validate-relax --nonet support_files/notepadqq.appdata.xml appstream-util install --nonet support_files/notepadqq.appdata.xml + appstream-util validate-relax --nonet support_files/notepadqq.appdata.xml support_files/notepadqq.appdata.xml: OK + appstream-util install --nonet support_files/notepadqq.appdata.xml Error opening file ?/usr/share/appdata/notepadqq.appdata.xml?: Permission denied error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Pap9ky (%install) Any ideas? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #16 from jan(a)kcore.org --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdeluyck/notepadqq-packaging/master/Fed... SRPM URL: https://kcore.org/tmp/notepadqq-1.4.0-1.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #18 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Two hopefully final comments: 1. Please don't forget to add "%license COPYING" to include the license file in the package, under the %files section. This will automatically include the license. 2. I think you mean either "Wed Jun 13 2018" or "Tue Jun 12 2018". Note that "rpmdev-bumpsec" can automatically generate changelog entries for you. Otherwise, this looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #20 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Just a heads up; https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdeluyck/notepadqq-packaging/master/Fed... seems to have git merge conflict markers in it... e.g.: ======= The version in the SRPM doesn't, so I'll run final checks over that and then hopefully approve the package. But please be careful with this sort of thing. (In general, you should always make sure the copy of the spec you link and the one that's in the SRPM are the same). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #22 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; --- No worries, it happens sometime-- just wanted to make sure you were aware. :) Anyway, I'm sorry, but it looks like there are (now?) more bundled dependencies under src/editor/libs that I seem to have missed before... $ ls -l src/editor/libs ... drwxrwxr-x. 12 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 codemirror drwxrwxr-x. 2 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 jquery drwxrwxr-x. 6 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 MathJax drwxrwxr-x. 2 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 require.js MathJax is the big one, but there's also require.js and jquery. I would suggest trying to unbundle MathJax if possible; the other two it may be simplest to just add bundled provides for. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Great! I think everything looks good now then... all my other comments have been addressed. I have sponsored you into the packagers group, and will now go ahead and approve the package. You should now be able to follow the instructions on this page below the "Get Sponsored" section to create a git repository for the package and build it in Fedora. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Ge... Sorry again this took a while to process! Feel free to contact me either by email or over IRC (my handle is "TC01" on all the Freenode Fedora IRC channels) if you have packaging questions, about this or any other package. :) 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]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "SIL (v1.1)", "ISC", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1472 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1519785-notepadqq/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in notepadqq-debuginfo , notepadqq-debugsource [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3092480 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: notepadqq-1.4.8-3.fc29.x86_64.rpm notepadqq-debuginfo-1.4.8-3.fc29.x86_64.rpm notepadqq-debugsource-1.4.8-3.fc29.x86_64.rpm notepadqq-1.4.8-3.fc29.src.rpm notepadqq.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/notepadqq/extension_tools/node_modules/.bin notepadqq.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/notepadqq/extension_tools/node_modules/.bin notepadqq.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/notepadqq/extension_tools/node_modules/.bin/shjs /usr/bin/shjs notepadqq.src:33: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(nodejs-adm-zip) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: notepadqq-debuginfo-1.4.8-3.fc29.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory notepadqq.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> notepadqq.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/notepadqq/extension_tools/node_modules/.bin notepadqq.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/notepadqq/extension_tools/node_modules/.bin notepadqq.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/notepadqq/extension_tools/node_modules/.bin/shjs /usr/bin/shjs notepadqq-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> notepadqq-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- notepadqq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/node ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.11)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Svg.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebKit.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebKitWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebKitWidgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(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) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) mathjax nodejs nodejs-archiver nodejs-shelljs qt5-qtsvg qt5-qtwebkit rtld(GNU_HASH) notepadqq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): notepadqq-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- notepadqq: application() application(notepadqq.desktop) bundled(jQuery) bundled(nodejs-adm-zip) bundled(nodejs-codemirror) bundled(requireJS) metainfo() metainfo(notepadqq.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/html) mimehandler(text/plain) mimehandler(text/x-c) mimehandler(text/x-php) mimehandler(text/x-shellscript) notepadqq notepadqq(x86-64) notepadqq-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) notepadqq-debuginfo notepadqq-debuginfo(x86-64) notepadqq-debugsource: notepadqq-debugsource notepadqq-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq/archive/v1.4.8.tar.gz#/notepadqq-1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 13fba9abd84c59de27fbe92f74e2763b57588fcf9c88af10ec67313b0abbc9d0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 13fba9abd84c59de27fbe92f74e2763b57588fcf9c88af10ec67313b0abbc9d0 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1519785 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #26 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/notepadqq -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 jan(a)kcore.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-07-22 04:36:04 --- Comment #28 from jan(a)kcore.org --- Tes! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component