[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 05:44 EST --- OK builds nicely in FC5 some problem in devel related to changes in E-D-S. Would open a bug for it on gnome-phone-manager but it haven't appeared in Bugzilla yet so can't. Thanks to Chris for the review and all! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 14:47 EST --- Ping? Looks like this was imported and built OK, can we close the bug? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 17:45 EST --- It doesn't build on devel because (I think) Evolution Data Server has changed its interface. I need to communicate with upstream and perhaps write patches first... :-/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-10 11:32 EST --- Requested changes have been made to spec file. Looking back over the guidelines, there doesn't appear to be an explict dependency on a %check section. (Normally it's a good idea to have something of the form %check\nmake test. See, e.g., almost any perl module package spec file.) As this package has no test suite, it doesn't make much sense for me to insist on it :) The package builds in mock(5/x86_64) after I added BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils to the spec. Add it and I'll approve... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-10 19:37 EST --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-03 14:46 EST --- The errors from linking libedataserver and libcamel, which both comes from the evolution-data-server RPM package, is technically out of scope for this package as far as I can tell. gnome-phone-manager does not use either nspr or the rest of the deps directly, only indirectly through evolution-data-server. The problem is that the RPM for evolution-data-server does not bring in its dependencies. I think it is a problem with evolution-data-server on x64 not picking up its own dependencies correctly... I was under the impression that this did not occur in mock on i386? (I'm working on the rest of the issues.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-03 16:28 EST --- New version with all but the above mentioned issue fixed: Spec URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/gnome-phone-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-3.src.rpm I am however uncertain about the %check thing, I cannot find this in the review guidelines or elsewhere, can you give me a pointer to information? There is perhaps something all new I need to learn here... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 02:04 EST ---
There is at least one instance where you use 'rm', and then '%{__rm}'. The
guidelines require that you use one or the other form consistently. (MUST)
Also, the package fails to build under mock:
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libplds4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libplc4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libnspr4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libssl3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libsmime3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libnss3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0: undefined reference to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
(Full log attached.) I suspect this is due to nspr nss not being
buildrequires'ed, from the names of the libraries being referenced.
Additionally, are the scriptlets necessary? The .desktop file does not have a
MimeType entry (see wiki: ScriptletSnippets). In any case, desktop-file-utils
should not be required for the scriptlets and the scriptlets should be
tolerant of the desktop-file-utils not being installed.
After installing, I find I have two entries for the app in my menus.
X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (release tag).
X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ Package URL is browsable.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
+ source files match upstream:
951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9 gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2
951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9 gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2.srpm
+ latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
X package builds in mock (devel/x86_64).
+ rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires are sane:
== provides
gnome-phone-manager = 0.7-2.fc5
== requires
/bin/sh
X desktop-file-utils
libICE.so.6()(64bit)
libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit)
libSM.so.6()(64bit)
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libbluetooth.so.1()(64bit)
libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit)
libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit)
libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit)
libbtctl.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libebook-1.2.so.5()(64bit)
libedataserver-1.2.so.7()(64bit)
libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgnokii.so.2()(64bit)
libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomebt.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
+ no shared libraries are present.
+ package is not relocatable.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
X %check is not present, but there are no tests
X non-sane scriptlets present.
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
+ no headers.
+ no pkgconfig files.
+ no libtool .la droppings.
X desktop file installs correctly.
+ not a web app.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 02:07 EST --- Created an attachment (id=133370) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=133370action=view) mock x86_64/devel build.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 05:19 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add
BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser
After that also i got errors as
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager
No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install)
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows no error.
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager, in the
format gnome-phone-manager.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in
%doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9)
- This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary rpms
for i386 architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*.
- This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- This package used macros.
- Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 05:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add
BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser
That should be:
BuildReuires: perl(XML::Parser)
After that also i got errors as
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager
No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install)
That's usually a sign of needing:
BuildRequires: gettext
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows no error.
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager, in
the
format gnome-phone-manager.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own
file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in
%doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9)
- This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary rpms
for i386 architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by using
the
%find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*.
It's a good idea to list things that need fixing separately from the rest of the
review checklist as that's clearer and easier to read.
- This package used macros.
But did it use them *consistently*? That's what the review guidelines are asking
to be checked.
- Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS
Did you look to see if there are any other document files in the package that
might be included, or whether any of the included files don't have anything
useful to end users of the package?
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
No, they're not. The package failed to build in mock because of the missing
buildreqs of perl(XML::Parser) and gettext.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 05:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add
BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser
That should be:
BuildReuires: perl(XML::Parser)
After that also i got errors as
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager
No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install)
That's usually a sign of needing:
BuildRequires: gettext
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows no error.
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager,
in the
format gnome-phone-manager.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own
file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in
%doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9)
- This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary
rpms
for i386 architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by
using the
%find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*.
It's a good idea to list things that need fixing separately from the rest of
the
review checklist as that's clearer and easier to read.
Will remember that.
- This package used macros.
But did it use them *consistently*? That's what the review guidelines are
asking
to be checked.
Did i missed somthing to check in SPEC?
- Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS
Did you look to see if there are any other document files in the package that
might be included, or whether any of the included files don't have anything
useful to end users of the package?
I didn't get you?
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
No, they're not. The package failed to build in mock because of the missing
buildreqs of perl(XML::Parser) and gettext.
I forgot that i added perl(XML::Parser) not AUTHOR.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 07:03 EST ---
Thnaks for your comment Paul.
This Package requires todo following things
1) Add
BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser),gettext
2)Package is using mixed macros as explained by Paul in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758#c4
Either use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
3)I think with README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHOR these file TODO is also important
so that let the user know what things AUTHOR is interested to implement in
future versions.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
