https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785
Ben Rosser <rosser....@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #24 from Ben Rosser <rosser....@gmail.com> ---
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#Get_Sponsored
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-1.4.8.tar.gz
:
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BQUNA3UA2VJTG7VPGVOLUF3HJXWXGTUR/
