[Bug 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932

Fedora End Of Life  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |EOL
Last Closed||2018-05-29 07:58:57



--- Comment #9 from Fedora End Of Life  ---
Fedora 26 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-05-29. Fedora 26
is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any
further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be 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
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/WLBCKLKFVEFQBRLPSRDF55RIFBSEY2DI/

[Bug 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932



--- Comment #8 from Fedora End Of Life  ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '26'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not
able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.

-- 
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 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932



--- Comment #7 from Martin Kyral  ---
plasma-vault landed in rawhide. Time to close the review 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plasma-vault

-- 
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 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---

You can remove %post since it's now empty.

Packaqe accepted.

-- 
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 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932



--- Comment #4 from Martin Kyral  ---
srpm:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkyral/plasma-unstable/fedora-26-x86_64/00613059-plasma-vault/plasma-vault-5.10.95-1.fc26.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 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932



--- Comment #3 from Martin Kyral  ---
commit:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mkyral/plasma-unstable/plasma-vault.git/commit/plasma-vault.spec?h=f26

-- 
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 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932



--- Comment #2 from Martin Kyral  ---
Thanks for the feedback. I (hopefully) fixed the problems and changed the
release tag to 1%{?dist} so it conforms to rawhide versioning rules:

http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mkyral/plasma-unstable/plasma-vault.git/tree/plasma-vault.spec?h=f26

-- 
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 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - I don't think you need to run %post -p /sbin/ldconfig . The .so files are
plugins in private directories.

 - Your %description line must be split to stay below 80 characters per line.

 - You must own the directory /usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.vault

 - The version in the %changelog is not consistent with the Release: tag. It
should probably be:

* Thu Sep 14 2017 Martin Kyral  - 5.10.95-0.1 


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
 MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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: "GPL", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)", "Unknown or generated". 56 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/plasma-vault/review-plasma-
 vault/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of
 /usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.vault
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/plasma/applets,
 /usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.vault
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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 %license.
[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]: 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