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 204461
Summary: | Review Request: kita - 2ch client for KDE | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | CC: | rdieter | ||||||
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: | 2006-08-30 12:22:43 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
2006-08-29 10:56:48 UTC
Created attachment 135118 [details]
Mock build log of kita-0.177.3-3
This package can be rebuilt in mock cleanly.
rpmlint is silent.
shouldn't this directory be owned as well : %{_datadir}/apps/kita/ No need for Requires(post,postun): %{_bindir}/update-desktop-database Requires(post,postun): %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache Per the ScriptletSnippets wiki, no need to add dependancies for these. To the comment #2 : You mean that this package SHOULD NOT own the directory? If you mean that this package SHOULD, it is already because %{_datadir}/apps/kita/ equals to %dir %{_datadir}/apps/kita/ %{_datadir}/apps/kita/* This directory is used only by this package, so owning this package is necessary. To comment #3 : Why? %post and %postun uses these commands. > Why? %post and %postun uses these commands.
They need not necessarily be present at install-time, hence the presence of ||:
at the end of each command. For more details, please read the ScriptletSnippets
wiki.
(In reply to comment #5) > > Why? %post and %postun uses these commands. > > They need not necessarily be present at install-time, hence the presence of ||: > at the end of each command. For more details, please read the ScriptletSnippets > wiki. Okay. I removed those. spec, srpm are updated: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/kita.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/kita-0.177.3-4.src.rpm All of this: if [ -d %{_prefix}/lib64 ] ; then SUF=64 else SUF= fi for f in %{_prefix}/lib$SUF/qt-* ; do QTDIR=$f done ... --with-qt-libraries=... Can be omitted, and put this in before calling %configure: unset QTDIR || : ; . /etc/profile.d/qt.sh which will setup the QT env. vars automatically/appropriately. (In reply to comment #7) > > Can be omitted, and put this in before calling %configure: > unset QTDIR || : ; . /etc/profile.d/qt.sh > > which will setup the QT env. vars automatically/appropriately. Well, configure seems to accept QTLIB. Again updated so as to call qt.sh : http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/kita.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/kita-0.177.3-5.src.rpm 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 (GPL) 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. ******* kdelibs-devel already requires qt-devel, libacl-devel, libart_lgpl-devel, arts-devel, pcre-devel, zlib-devel chitlesh(SPECS)[0]$rpm -qR kdelibs-devel /bin/sh arts-devel bzip2-devel fam-devel kdelibs = 6:3.5.4-0.1.fc5 libacl-devel libart_lgpl-devel libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libidn-devel libjpeg-devel libqt-mt.so.3 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libtiff-devel libxslt-devel openssl-devel pcre-devel qt-devel >= 1:3.3.6 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 zlib-devel ******* - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths - 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} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - 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: There are no Header files or static libraries - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives - 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. - 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. This package lookss good to me. Clean the BR, then I'll approuve it afterwards Created attachment 135188 [details] Mock build log of kita-0.177.3-6 (In reply to comment #9) > Clean the BR Ah... Actually anything other than kdelibs-devel desktop-file-utils disappered.... Again I updated spec and srpm. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/kita.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/kita-0.177.3-6.src.rpm This package (kita-0.177.3-6) havs been APPROUVED ! (In reply to comment #11) > This package (kita-0.177.3-6) havs been APPROUVED ! Thank you!! Well, unset QTLIB was my misunderstanging, it should be unset QTDIR. Finally * 0.177.3-8 is pushed * rebuild for devel succeeded. http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=15477 * SyncNeeded is requested for FE-5. I close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. Thanks for reviewing. |