[Bug 3443] Review request: nemo-dropbox - Dropbox extension for nemo
RPM Fusion Bugzilla
noreply at rpmfusion.org
Thu Dec 18 15:12:09 CET 2014
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3443
--- Comment #15 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me at raveit.de> 2014-12-18 15:12:09 CET ---
APPROVED!
Two minors:
Please add docs to file-section before uploading, because docs in dropbox are
about nautilus-dropbox.
You should inform upstream about incorrect FSF address and obsolete auto-tools
macros.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)
(with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 39 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rave/nemo-
dropbox/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[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]: 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 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
This is an upstream job, please inform upstream!
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
nemo-dropbox-2.4.x-2.fc22.src.rpm
nemo-dropbox.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nemo-dropbox.src: W: strange-permission nemo-extensions-2.4.x.tar.gz 0444L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Strange permission should fixed by cvs upload.
Please add docs to file-section, because docs in dropbox are about
nautilus-dropbox.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root at mother /]# rpmlint nemo-dropbox
nemo-dropbox.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root at mother /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
nemo-dropbox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
dropbox
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libnemo-extension.so.1()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
nemo-dropbox:
libnemo-dropbox.so()(64bit)
nemo-dropbox
nemo-dropbox(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
nemo-dropbox: /usr/lib64/nemo/extensions-3.0/libnemo-dropbox.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/nemo-extensions/source/nemo-extensions-2.4.x.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
a46547592438c5aef46940c314dea4d10bd4f8c746fe758b5430a6a69adf76a0
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a46547592438c5aef46940c314dea4d10bd4f8c746fe758b5430a6a69adf76a0
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0
/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-seahorse/configure.ac:27, /home/rave/nemo-
dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-
fileroller/configure.ac:20, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-
unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-dropbox/configure.in:20
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0
/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-repairer/configure.ac:10, /home/rave/nemo-
dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-
preview/configure.ac:38, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0
/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-image-converter/configure.ac:14, /home/rave
/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-
share/configure.in:17, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0
/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-python/configure.in:20
AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0
/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-seahorse/configure.ac:10, /home/rave/nemo-
dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-
fileroller/configure.ac:9, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox/upstream-unpacked/Source0
/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-dropbox/configure.in:9, /home/rave/nemo-dropbox
/upstream-unpacked/Source0/nemo-extensions-2.4.x/nemo-python/configure.in:11
This is an upstream job, please inform them!
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -r -n nemo-dropbox -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, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the rpmfusion-developers
mailing list