[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-02-03 07:03:29 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 |smuxi-0.11-3.fc21 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- smuxi-0.11-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #21 from Mirco Bauer mmmba...@gnome.org --- Thank you! -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mirco Bauer from comment #17) I explained 2 times why my proposal is the optimal solution. I am not going to invest more time on this. Do whatever is right for Fedora. Disclaimer: I don't know the criteria Fedora uses to split packages, I only do know those practice/rules for Debian. Nonetheless, thank you a lot for caring for Smuxi and packaging it for Fedora! My intention was not underestimate what you say. I modified package according to your advices: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/smuxi.git/tree/smuxi.spec -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #17 from Mirco Bauer mmmba...@gnome.org --- I explained 2 times why my proposal is the optimal solution. I am not going to invest more time on this. Do whatever is right for Fedora. Disclaimer: I don't know the criteria Fedora uses to split packages, I only do know those practice/rules for Debian. Nonetheless, thank you a lot for caring for Smuxi and packaging it for Fedora! -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smuxi-0.11-3.fc20 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- smuxi-0.11-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smuxi-0.11-3.fc21 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mirco Bauer from comment #15) The current package split is problematic. It doesn't allow a console frontend only install without installing X11/GNOME packages. Also a smuxi-server only install without X11/GNOME packages is not possible. Please re-evaluate my recommended package split: * smuxi-engine * smuxi-engine* libraries (the engine has plugins thus the wildcard is important) * bin/smuxi-server * smuxi-server.exe* * man1/smuxi-server.1 * all other private libraries (SmartIrcr4net, Twitterizer, ServiceStack, etc) * smuxi-frontend-gnome * bin/smuxi-frontend-gnome * smuxi-frontend-gnome* (this frontend has plugins thus the wildcard is important) * man1/smuxi-frontend-gnome.1 * smuxi-frontend-stfl * bin/smuxi-frontend-stfl * smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe* * man1/smuxi-frontend-stfl.1 This the smallest possible split that still allows to install a) server-only without X11/GUI dependencies, b) just the GNOME frontend c) just the console frontend (without X11/GUI) Is it okay for you? -- https://www.diffchecker.com/5mm6aq3b I wish keep smuxi, smuxi-engine, smuxi-stfl packages. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #15 from Mirco Bauer mmmba...@gnome.org --- The current package split is problematic. It doesn't allow a console frontend only install without installing X11/GNOME packages. Also a smuxi-server only install without X11/GNOME packages is not possible. Please re-evaluate my recommended package split: * smuxi-engine * smuxi-engine* libraries (the engine has plugins thus the wildcard is important) * bin/smuxi-server * smuxi-server.exe* * man1/smuxi-server.1 * all other private libraries (SmartIrcr4net, Twitterizer, ServiceStack, etc) * smuxi-frontend-gnome * bin/smuxi-frontend-gnome * smuxi-frontend-gnome* (this frontend has plugins thus the wildcard is important) * man1/smuxi-frontend-gnome.1 * smuxi-frontend-stfl * bin/smuxi-frontend-stfl * smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe* * man1/smuxi-frontend-stfl.1 This the smallest possible split that still allows to install a) server-only without X11/GUI dependencies, b) just the GNOME frontend c) just the console frontend (without X11/GUI) -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #12) Please add me as a co maintainer, thanks. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: smuxi Short Description: Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client Upstream URL: https://smuxi.im Owners: sagitter cicku Branches: f21 f20 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Please add me as a co maintainer, thanks. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926
MartinKG mgans...@alice.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find APACHE-LICENSE-2.0.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
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), LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, MIT/X11 (BSD like), BSD
(3 clause), BSD, GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
LGPL (v2.1 or later). 1798 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in
/home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/1177926-smuxi/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 must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/lib/pkgconfig,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
/usr/lib/smuxi, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in smuxi
[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 8 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 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]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgans...@alice.de -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: smuxi Short Description: Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client Upstream URL: https://smuxi.im Owners: sagitter Branches: f21 f20 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi-0.11-2.fc21.src.rpm Fixed licenses. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Here is the origin: http://awk.io/smuxi.spec -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926
--- Comment #6 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
a quick review.
1. rpmlint smuxi-0.11-1.fc21.src.rpm
smuxi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irssi - IRS, RSI, sir
smuxi.src:73: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
smuxi.src:110: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}
smuxi.src:111: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome.exe*
smuxi.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend.dll*
smuxi.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-irc.dll*
smuxi.src:114: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-twitter.dll*
smuxi.src:115: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-frontend-gnome-xmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:116: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-server.exe*
smuxi.src:127: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Db4objects.Db4o.dll*
smuxi.src:128: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine.dll*
smuxi.src:129: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-common.dll*
smuxi.src:130: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-campfire.dll*
smuxi.src:131: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/ServiceStack.*.dll*
smuxi.src:132: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-irc.dll*
smuxi.src:133: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Meebey.SmartIrc4net.dll*
smuxi.src:134: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-jabbr.dll*
smuxi.src:135: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/JabbR.Client.dll*
smuxi.src:136: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Microsoft.AspNet.SignalR.Client.dll*
smuxi.src:137: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-twitter.dll*
smuxi.src:138: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Newtonsoft.Json.dll*
smuxi.src:139: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/Twitterizer2.dll*
smuxi.src:140: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}-engine-xmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:141: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/agsxmpp.dll*
smuxi.src:142: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/StarkSoftProxy.dll*
smuxi.src:146: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/smuxi/smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe
smuxi.src:147: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/smuxi/smuxi-frontend-stfl.exe.config
smuxi.src:153: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-common.pc
smuxi.src:154: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-engine-irc.pc
smuxi.src:155: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-engine.pc
smuxi.src:156: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/smuxi-frontend.pc
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 30 errors, 1 warnings.
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
Solution:- Don't hardcode path in SPEC rather use macros.
2. the source package contains various types of License and must be corrected.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, MIT/X11 (BSD like), BSD
(3 clause), BSD, GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
LGPL (v2.1 or later). 1798 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to MartinKG from comment #4) will you take the spec file from Christopher, and update it ? No. We can start from mine. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 MartinKG mgans...@alice.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #4 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- will you take the spec file from Christopher, and update it ? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
Don't forget that this is based on Mono:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono#File_Locations
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926
--- Comment #8 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
I'm doing an informal review. So whoever does the actual review please let me
know whatever i did wrong.
I used fedora-review to generate the report and made some manual checks.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the [ ] Manual check required, you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, MIT/X11 (BSD like), BSD
(3 clause), BSD, GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
LGPL (v2.1 or later). 1798 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in
/home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/1177926-smuxi/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/lib/pkgconfig,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
/usr/lib/smuxi, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in smuxi
[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 8 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 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
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1033413 has been marked as a duplicate of 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Thanks for doing this, I actually wanted to leave a reply at the original bug, but I was taking exams. It'd be better to see my original spec as well, although I still manage to restore it from my SSD. Just a note, I don't want to see a SUSE style package, I know this has been pushed to SUSE repo, but I think there are too many subpackages. Thanks! -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
