[Bug 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]