[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

sensor@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2018-12-29 13:36:06



--- Comment #15 from sensor@gmail.com ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1662532 ***

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
@mosquito open a new bug and mark this one as duplicate

%package doc should be noarch

I don't know what to do about those static library? In any case they should be
in a static subpackage.

Add the examples to the docs or to a examples subpackage.

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||manasmangaon...@gmail.com



--- Comment #13 from Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23)  ---
Not a official review 
--

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[x] = Manual review needed


Issues
==
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
  present.
  Note: Package has .a files: qt-installer-framework. Illegal package name:
  qt-installer-framework. Does not provide -static: qt-installer-framework.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
- 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 %license.
  Note: License file ifw-license-check-page.png is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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: "Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)",
 "Unknown or generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GNU Free
 Documentation License (v1.3)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL
 (v3)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)". 915 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /root/review/normal/qt-installer-
 framework/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/qt5,
 /usr/lib64/qt5/bin
[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]: 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.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} 

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #12 from sensor@gmail.com ---
hi zebob. Could you review this package?

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #11 from sensor@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #9)
> No response so far. :((

Package is finished. Please review it. 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
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

sensor@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||sensor@gmail.com



--- Comment #10 from sensor@gmail.com ---
I'm coming. Reached. ~~

SPEC:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00839080-qt-installer-framework/qt-installer-framework.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00839080-qt-installer-framework/qt-installer-framework-3.0.6-1.fc30.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 CC|projects...@smart.ms|
   Assignee|projects...@smart.ms|nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review?  |
   |needinfo?(he...@kde.org)|



--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner  ---
No response so far. :((

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||he...@kde.org
  Flags||needinfo?(he...@kde.org)



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly reminder. Please fix the open issues noted in comment #2 to let me
approve the package.

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
Blockers:
- Please ask upstream to add proper license headers into sources. Not all
  of the source files have or seem to miss a license hint inside.
- examples subpackage without license text file. Maybe let it depend on
  the main package.
- Please add a license breakdown. You can do that in an extra text file.
- Main package must depend on qt5 to own all top folders it puts files in.

NTH:
- How to use this package? Can you add desktop files for the GUI binaries?
- Please use install -p to preserve timestamps.
- Please use a build conditional instead of '%define doc 1'.

Blockers:
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in qt-installer-framework
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
- 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 %license.
  Note: License file license.txt is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)", "Unknown or generated". 1000 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder
 /fedora-review/1360277-qt-installer-framework/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt5/examples,
 /usr/lib64/qt5, /usr/share/doc/qt5, /usr/lib64/qt5/bin
[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.
[?]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17554727

[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]: 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
 

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner  ---
Use correct links for f-r:

Spec URL:
https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/qt-installer-framework/qt-installer-framework.spec
SRPM URL:
https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/qt-installer-framework/qt-installer-framework-2.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||projects...@smart.ms
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner  ---
Could you look into bug #1402590 for a review swap?

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #4 from Helio Chissini de Castro  ---
Disregard last comment, wrong place

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #3 from Helio Chissini de Castro  ---
The URL reflects the official URL. Packages just not moved to there yet ( will
be today )

New source:
SPEC URL:
https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/qt5-qtdeclarative-render2d/qt5-qtdeclarative-render2d.spec
SRPM URL:
https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/qt5-qtdeclarative-render2d/qt5-qtdeclarative-render2d-5.7.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #2 from Helio Chissini de Castro  ---
Fixed

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277



--- Comment #1 from Kevin Kofler  ---
Your spec URL is a 404.

-- 
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

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
  Alias||qt-installer-framework



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1360277] Review Request: qt-installer-framework - The Qt Installer Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360277

Helio Chissini de Castro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937
[Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker
-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org