https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org Blocks| |656997 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 Magnus Tuominen <magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Magnus Tuominen <magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Review coming soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 --- Comment #3 from Magnus Tuominen <magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com&gt; --- This is the review: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -iv plasma-mediacenter.spec plasma-mediacenter.spec: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma-mediacenter/0.9/src/plasma-mediac... (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -iv ../SRPMS/plasma-mediacenter-0.9-2.fc17.src.rpm plasma-mediacenter.src: I: checking plasma-mediacenter.src: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma-mediacenter/0.9/src (timeout 10 seconds) plasma-mediacenter.src: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma-mediacenter/0.9/src/plasma-mediac... (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -iv ../RPMS/x86_64/plasma-mediacenter-*2*.rpm plasma-mediacenter.x86_64: I: checking plasma-mediacenter.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency plasma-mobile-libs You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. plasma-mediacenter.x86_64: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma-mediacenter/0.9/src (timeout 10 seconds) plasma-mediacenter.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libmediacenterlibs.so libmediacenterlibs.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. plasma-mediacenter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plasma-mediacenter Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. plasma-mediacenter.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post cp plasma-mediacenter.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig You should use %postun -p <command> instead of using: %postun <command> It will avoid the fork of a shell interpreter to execute your command as well as allows rpm to automatically mark the dependency on your command for the excecution of the scriptlet. plasma-mediacenter-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking plasma-mediacenter-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma-mediacenter/0.9/src (timeout 10 seconds) plasma-mediacenter-devel.x86_64: I: checking plasma-mediacenter-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma-mediacenter/0.9/src (timeout 10 seconds) plasma-mediacenter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. ? The invalid-soname error can be ignored, not sure about %post .. maybe someone more experienced can make a comment on that? BR plasma-mobile-lib is probably not needed as plasma-mobile is listed as a BR. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. SRPM: 22df9da683c220303a5b300b1528b407 Upstream: 22df9da683c220303a5b300b1528b407 OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] OK 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK 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. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. 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. OK, packager can ask upstream? SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK 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. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. 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. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. References to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines Minor questions regarding the %post stuff, installing icons are we? I *think* that could be done in %install ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 --- Comment #5 from Siddharth Sharma <siddharth.kde(a)gmail.com&gt; --- LICENSE added and other changes requested in review process Spec URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/plasma-mediacenter.spec SRPM URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/plasma-mediacenter-0.8.90-3.fc17... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; --- No. These are plugins, not linked libraries. Libraries intended to be linked would be installed to %{_kde4_libdir}, not %{_kde4_libdir}/kde4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 --- Comment #9 from Siddharth Sharma <siddharth.kde(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Changes done as per comment 7 Spec URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/plasma-mediacenter.spec SRPM URLhttp://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/plasma-mediacenter-0.8.90-4.f... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 --- Comment #11 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=827814 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=827814 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- plasma-mediacenter-0.8.90-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plasma-mediacenter-0.8.90-4.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- plasma-mediacenter-0.8.90-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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=827814 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-12-06 02:06:33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.