https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |984175 (IQmol) -- 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=2SEd9Rr0nR&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review(a)lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Package Review ============== Package looks just fine and can be directly approved. There is only a minor "improvement". Please use this sed command, instead of your one to correctly install into _libdir: sed -i "s|target.path = .*|target.path = %{buildroot}%{_libdir}|g" src/src.pro Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tomspur/scratch/reviews/qmsgbox/1002994-QMsgBox/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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. text is there! [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Package functions as described. Will be tested as dependency of IQmol. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc20.x86_64.rpm QMsgBox-devel-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc20.x86_64.rpm QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc20.src.rpm QMsgBox-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation QMsgBox.src:43: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i "s|target.path = /usr/lib|target.path = %{buildroot}%{_libdir}|g" src/src.pro 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint QMsgBox QMsgBox-devel QMsgBox.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQMsgBox.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 QMsgBox.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQMsgBox.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 QMsgBox-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- QMsgBox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.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) QMsgBox-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): QMsgBox(x86-64) libQMsgBox.so.1()(64bit) Provides -------- QMsgBox: QMsgBox QMsgBox(x86-64) libQMsgBox.so.1()(64bit) QMsgBox-devel: QMsgBox-devel QMsgBox-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/croscato/QMsgBox/tarball/94677dc52fe1c2ea6fe42bd5acdbd... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 97f5ba6d74eab23ef47823c4f1bff6c607cee9a92ab605411b77ff4703474370 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97f5ba6d74eab23ef47823c4f1bff6c607cee9a92ab605411b77ff4703474370 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1002994 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- 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=1002994 Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; --- Thanks for the review! I've changed the sed command to match your suggestion. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: QMsgBox Short Description: Solves a problem that prevents qt message icons from being displayed Owners: jussilehtola Branches: F-18 F-19 F-20 EL-6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git9467 |QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git9467 |7dc.fc19 |7dc.fc18 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002994 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git9467 |QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git9467 |7dc.fc20 |7dc.el6 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- QMsgBox-0-1.20130830git94677dc.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component