Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724878 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-08-11 08:54:00 EDT --- Here's the formal review of the package. I'm sorry, there are still a few things to fix. - Add a slash between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir} and %{name} in the rm statements. Currently, the files supposed to be removed are still packaged. - The package provides qm locale files that must be installed with %find_lang %{name} --with-qt and %files -f %{name}.lang. However, as they are located in %{_datadir}/texstudio/ instead of a separate subfolder, it's a bit complicated to separate them from the other files in that directory. The qm files must not be added by one of the entries in the %files section. Also, texstudio seems to bundle Qt locales (qt_FOO.mq). Please ask upstream if they are modified or if they can be removed so that the original locale files that come with Qt are used. - Please use the original spelling "TeXstudio" in the %description - Ask upstream to add the GPLv3 license text to the qcodeedit folder. He should also fix the FSF address in COPYING. $ rpmlint *.rpm texstudio.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(qcodeedit) texstudio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/texstudio-2.2/COPYING texstudio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texstudio/COPYING texstudio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary texstudio texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.ui texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.ui texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.moc texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.moc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - GPLv2+ and GPLv3 (bundled and statically linked qcodeedit library) [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum texstudio-2.2.tar.gz* d23cf71c90f3fd950d49bf480285e920 texstudio-2.2.tar.gz d23cf71c90f3fd950d49bf480285e920 texstudio-2.2.tar.gz.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied. [X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. - exception for qcodeedit has been granted [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. - COPYING and AUTHORS packaged twice due to missing slash in rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}%{name}/... [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. EPEL <= 5 only: [+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [X] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. - upstream should add the GPLv3 license text to the qcodeedit dir [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review