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 204112
Summary: | Review Request: ochusha - A GTK+ 2ch.net BBS Browser | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-08-27 10:42:25 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: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Mamoru TASAKA
2006-08-25 16:59:22 UTC
Created attachment 134937 [details]
Rebuild log of ochusha in mock
* This package can be rebuilt in mock.
* rpmlint is silent.
Updated: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/ochusha.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/ochusha-0.5.8.2-2.src.rpm to explicitly require Japanese fonts. MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint's output is clean - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed (BSD) with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - MUST: 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. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i386. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} . - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. **** For the installed icons to show up in GNOME/KDE menus right after package installation, and speeds up GTK+ applications' access to the icons, you should add (below) in your spec file Requires(post): %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache Requires(postun): %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache %post /sbin/ldconfig touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications %postun /sbin/ldconfig touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications **** - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: No subpackages present. Well, actually the icon of ochusha was not under %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor, so I created a symlink and added gtk-update-icon-cache entry. Updated: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/ochusha.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/ochusha-0.5.8.2-3.src.rpm This package ochusha-0.5.8.2-3 has been approuved Thank you for very quick review!! Now I try to import to buildsys. Well: * build for devel succeeded. http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=14640 * SyncNeeded is requested for FE-5. Now I close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. Thank you. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ochusha New Branches: F-10 Owners: mtasaka Early branching request. cvs done. |