Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1075662
Summary: | Review Request: textcat - Written language identification | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Björn 'besser82' Esser <besser82> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christian Dersch <lupinix.fedora> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | lupinix.fedora |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lupinix.fedora:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | textcat-1.10-1.fc19 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-04-10 19:20:14 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Björn 'besser82' Esser
2014-03-12 14:30:56 UTC
Seems to be fine :) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 5 files. [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 %doc. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: 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. [x]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: textcat-1.10-1.fc21.noarch.rpm textcat-1.10-1.fc21.src.rpm textcat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trenkle -> Tinkle textcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary textcat textcat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trenkle -> Tinkle 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint textcat textcat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trenkle -> Tinkle textcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary textcat 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- textcat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(Benchmark) perl(Getopt::Std) perl(strict) perl(vars) Provides -------- textcat: textcat Source checksums ---------------- http://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/TextCat/text_cat.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfb042acdb481b3dc3165b5dd105a57679d912c5225ebd7c77b6b0e184b8cbfa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfb042acdb481b3dc3165b5dd105a57679d912c5225ebd7c77b6b0e184b8cbfa http://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/TextCat/textcat.pdf : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58fa304c9c67b53bf13c2d1558ed722648975559e1db54d9e4de5564b38f5ddc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58fa304c9c67b53bf13c2d1558ed722648975559e1db54d9e4de5564b38f5ddc Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1075662 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Thanks for the quick review, Christian! ##### New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: textcat Short Description: Written language identification Owners: besser82 Branches: el5 el6 epel7 f19 f20 InitialCC: ml-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). textcat-1.10-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/textcat-1.10-1.el5 textcat-1.10-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/textcat-1.10-1.el6 textcat-1.10-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/textcat-1.10-1.fc19 textcat-1.10-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/textcat-1.10-1.fc20 textcat-1.10-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. textcat-1.10-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. textcat-1.10-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. textcat-1.10-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. textcat-1.10-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. |