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 1208582
Summary: | Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Raphael Groner <projects.rg> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Rex Dieter <rdieter> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | arjunak234, besser82, extras-qa, i, jkt, kevin, kvolny, lupinix.fedora, mohammed_isam1984, package-review, projects.rg, rdieter, zbyszek |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rdieter:
fedora-review+
projects.rg: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | trojita-0.5-6.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | 1080411 | Environment: | |
Last Closed: | 2015-07-05 18:55:08 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1080411 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 928937 |
Description
Raphael Groner
2015-04-02 15:10:00 UTC
test_Html_formatting and manpage should be fixed. * Wed Apr 01 2015 Raphael Groner <> - 0.5-4 - reenable html formatting testcase, should work cause of a special patch in Qt - do not ship Doxyfile - fix help2man to not request Xorg SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-4.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9406470 I am trying to run fedora-review but I failed. This is the output: [MIMA@localhost ~]$ fedora-review -b 1208582 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1208582 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1208582 ERROR: Cannot find usable urls here ERROR: 'Cannot find .spec or .srpm URL(s)' (logs in /home/MIMA/.cache/fedora-review.log) Help? Just download the files from comment #c1, and run fedora-review -n trojita. BUILD/ licensecheck.txt review.txt srpm-unpacked/ build.log report.xml rpmlint.txt upstream/ dependencies/ results/ rpms-unpacked/ upstream-unpacked/ [MIMA@localhost fedora-review]$ cat review-trojita/review.txt This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint Result of feora-review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in trojita See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "LGPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version) GPL (v2.1)", "BSD (3 clause)". 66 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/MIMA/fedora-review/review- trojita/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/trojita, /usr/share/trojita/locale [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/trojita/locale, /usr/share/trojita [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in trojita [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [ ]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [ ]: 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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. ===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: trojita-0.5-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm trojita-0.5-4.fc21.src.rpm trojita.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trojitá -> Trojan trojita.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary be.contacts trojita.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trojitá -> Trojan trojita.src:104: W: macro-in-comment %package trojita.src:106: W: macro-in-comment %{name} trojita.src:108: W: macro-in-comment %description trojita.src:109: W: macro-in-comment %{summary} trojita.src:111: W: macro-in-comment %files trojita.src:112: W: macro-in-comment %license trojita.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %doc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/MIMA/fedora-review/trojita.spec 2015-04-30 20:34:25.950880124 +0400 +++ /home/MIMA/fedora-review/review-trojita/srpm-unpacked/trojita.spec 2015-04-01 23:32:56.000000000 +0400 @@ -16,7 +16,5 @@ Summary: IMAP e-mail client URL: http://%{name}.flaska.net/ -Source0: http://downloads.sf.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 -# execute and close the GUI: help2man --no-info --no-discard-stderr --version-option=%{version} build/%{name} >%{name}.1 -Source1: %{name}.1 +Source: http://downloads.sf.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 BuildRequires: cmake @@ -25,8 +23,6 @@ #BuildRequires: qt4-webkit-devel BuildRequires: ragel - -# optional dependencies, see below -#BuildRequires: doxygen graphviz -#BuildRequires: help2man +BuildRequires: doxygen graphviz +BuildRequires: help2man # needed for %%check @@ -89,11 +85,10 @@ # generate manpage mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 -#help2man -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 --no-info --no-discard-stderr --version-string=%{version} build/%{name} -cp -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 +help2man -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 --no-info --no-discard-stderr -h-h --version-string=%{version} build/%{name} %files -f %{name}_common.lang %license LICENSE -%doc README +%doc README src/Doxyfile %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* %{_libdir}/%{name}/ @@ -148,7 +143,5 @@ %changelog * Wed Apr 01 2015 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 0.5-4 -- reenable html formatting testcase, should work cause of a special patch in Qt -- do not ship Doxyfile -- fix help2man to not request Xorg +- reenable html formatting testcase * Wed Apr 01 2015 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 0.5-3 Requires -------- trojita (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Sql.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebKit.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebKitWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtrojita_plugins.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- trojita: appdata() appdata(trojita.appdata.xml) application() application(trojita.desktop) libtrojita_plugins.so()(64bit) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/mailto) trojita trojita(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- trojita: /usr/lib64/trojita/libtrojita_plugins.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sf.net/trojita/trojita-0.5.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 21d8f0bf12b7d6dc39344ab70f4a0cb5b1997a3b60dc502841272ac92959458a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 21d8f0bf12b7d6dc39344ab70f4a0cb5b1997a3b60dc502841272ac92959458a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n trojita Buildroot used: fedora-21-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 (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > Just download the files from comment #c1, and run fedora-review -n trojita. thanx for the tip! (In reply to Mohammed Isam from comment #4) > This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are > also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: > - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such > a list, create one. > - Add your own remarks to the template checks. > - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not > listed by fedora-review. > - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this > case you could also file a bug against fedora-review > - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines > in what you paste. > - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful Please read this ^. fedora-review is just a tool, and it's output should always be critically analyzed by the reviewer, not taken as authoritative. Its output also needs "postprocessing", i.e. filling all the empty brackets by hand ("[ ]"). fedora-review simply is not smart enough to e.g. check if the version is the latest upstream version. Will fix soon. Please be patient. New upload. SPEC https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec SRPM https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-4.fc22.src.rpm test builds: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/raphgro/playground/build/89534/ (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #6) > Please read this ^. fedora-review is just a tool, and it's output should > always be > critically analyzed by the reviewer, not taken as authoritative. Its output > also needs > "postprocessing", i.e. filling all the empty brackets by hand ("[ ]"). > fedora-review > simply is not smart enough to e.g. check if the version is the latest > upstream > version. My bad! This is my first review. Thanx for the help Zbigniew. willing to swap reviews? mine is bug #1125952 (artikulate kde app) We should go with Qt5 only here. Reason: Qt4 upstream announced the final and last release and is going to stop further development. (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #11) > We should go with Qt5 only here. Reason: Qt4 upstream announced the final > and last release and is going to stop further development. # FIXME decide between qt5 or qt4 %global with_qt5 1 Ping? Rex, should I fix something? Please start / continue the review. initial comments: naming: ok sources: ok c583bb4d82620cda1c49e5f1b084f550 trojita-0.5.tar.bz2 macros: ok scriptlets: ok license: ok, though personally I'd make it simpler and go with aggregate License: GPLv2+ 1. MUST do .desktop file validation 2. MUST do .appdata.xml validation 3. SHOULD consider using xvfb-run instead of hard-coded Xvfb + options in %check (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #14) … > 3. SHOULD consider using xvfb-run instead of hard-coded Xvfb + options in > %check No idea how to use xvfb-run. Please explain. SPEC https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec SRPM https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-5.fc22.src.rpm rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10196404 * Wed Jun 24 2015 Raphael Groner <> - 0.5-5 - add files validation - use license GPLv2+ aggregated - use build conditionals - insert some comments - insert BR: zlib-devel (optional imap compression) Re: xvfb-run, comment #15 $ xvfb-run --help Usage: xvfb-run [OPTION ...] COMMAND Run COMMAND (usually an X client) in a virtual X server environment. Options: -a --auto-servernum try to get a free server number, starting at --server-num ... -n NUM --server-num=NUM server number to use (default: 99) ... In short, replace: Xvfb %{X_display} ... with xvfb-run -a ... Otherwise, the rest looks great now, APPROVED New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: trojita Short Description: IMAP e-mail client Upstream URL: http://trojita.flaska.net Owners: raphgro group::kde-sig Branches: f22 epel7 Rex, thanks a lot for the review! epel7 build fails: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10198805 Git done (by process-git-requests). SPEC https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec SRPM https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-6.fc22.src.rpm rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10217181 epel7 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10217135 * Fri Jun 26 2015 Raphael Groner <> - 0.5-6 - optional BR: at EPEL New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: trojita Short Description: IMAP e-mail client Upstream URL: http://trojita.flaska.net Owners: raphgro group::kde-sig Branches: f21 trojita-0.5-6.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trojita-0.5-6.fc22 trojita-0.5-6.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trojita-0.5-6.fc21 trojita-0.5-6.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trojita-0.5-6.el7 trojita-0.5-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. trojita-0.5-6.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. trojita-0.5-6.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. trojita-0.5-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. |