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=819184 Volker Fröhlich <volker27(a)gmx.at&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27(a)gmx.at Flag| |fedora-review? -- 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.

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=819184 --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27(a)gmx.at&gt; 2012-05-06 11:47:02 EDT --- The development symlink should not be there, as there are no headers. I suggest to just delete it. Since one of the seemingly private libraries is installed in libdir, rpmlint complains about not running ldconfig. If this library really is private, it should ideally not be in libdir, but in the subdirectory along with the others. The provides of the final package also contain all those private libraries; that should be filtered. %dir %{_libdir}/qupzilla and %{_libdir}/qupzilla/*.so could be simplified to %{_libdir}/qupzilla. Probably use the name macro here. There are a couple of warnings for the desktop file. You should also run a scriplet for the icons installed in datadir/icons: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache Consider to include README.md, as it contains some useful information. I suggest to add a -f where you're deleting the "useless plugin", just in case it disappears in a future release. Buildroot rm in the install section, clean section and buildroot definition are definitely not necessary, as you BR qt >= 4.7, which is only in Fedora. I think the package could have a better Summary, but it's not a must. I noticed, there are a couple of plug-ins and private libraries with BSD licenses. As far as I understand http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lice..., this should be mentioned or the files should even be put to sub-packages. Somebody once suggested on one of my reviews, to remove the trailing slash after the domain name on the URL. I don't mind it, but I'd like to mention it. Are USE_WEBGL and USE_QTWEBKIT_2_2 options of interest? Both should work, I think. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 --- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Sure, but currently very busy. I don' think I will find time next week, if somebody else wants to move this forward, he is welcome. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 Volker Fröhlich <volker27(a)gmx.at&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27(a)gmx.at&gt; --- Ad summary: Probably something like "Modern Qt-based web browser" -- Slightly less generic Ad filtering provides: I think, there's a more up to date method: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering In anticipation that you fit the other minor issues easily, this package is approved. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Please see discussion in the former comments! 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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 if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/review-qupzilla/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please add a comment in the spec file! [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed Since qupzilla requires Qt 4.7, it will never go to EPEL5. Thus the buildroot is not necessary. I still think the ">= 4.7" could go away as well, since every version of Fedora has Qt >= 4.7. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). You could add --as-needed to avoid libm and libQtXml, if that makes any sense. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (QupZilla-1.3.5.tar.gz) This is due to the non-capitalized name and not an error. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Themes loose their original date [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: qupzilla-debuginfo-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.src.rpm qupzilla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US theming -> teeming, hemming, emitting qupzilla.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qupzilla qupzilla.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US theming -> teeming, hemming, emitting 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint qupzilla qupzilla-debuginfo qupzilla.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US qupzilla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQupZilla.so.1.3.5 linux-vdso.so.1 qupzilla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQupZilla.so.1.3.5 /usr/lib64/libQtXml.so.4 qupzilla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQupZilla.so.1.3.5 /lib64/libm.so.6 qupzilla.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qupzilla 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- qupzilla-debuginfo-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtScript.so.4()(64bit) libQtSql.so.4()(64bit) libQtWebKit.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(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) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- qupzilla-debuginfo-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: qupzilla-debuginfo = 1.3.5-1.fc16 qupzilla-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.3.5-1.fc16 qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: mimehandler(application/xhtml+xml) mimehandler(text/html) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/http) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/https) qupzilla = 1.3.5-1.fc16 qupzilla(x86-64) = 1.3.5-1.fc16 Unversioned so-files -------------------- qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libAccessKeysNavigation.so qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libGreaseMonkey.so qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libMouseGestures.so qupzilla-1.3.5-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/qupzilla/libPIM.so MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/downloads/QupZilla/qupzilla/QupZilla-1.3.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af8266dce8c3d353a9b7e2c0494651b55f3715b06e8465ff730f4e618fe453a3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af8266dce8c3d353a9b7e2c0494651b55f3715b06e8465ff730f4e618fe453a3 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n qupzilla -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qupzilla-1.3.5-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-12-20 11:29:14 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d2UJBNtXmz&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 Christian Dersch <lupinix(a)mailbox.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lupinix(a)mailbox.org Alias|qupzilla | -- 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