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
Bug 1119003 (minutor) - Review Request: minutor - Qt5 Minecraft Mapping tool
Summary: Review Request: minutor - Qt5 Minecraft Mapping tool
Alias: minutor
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: greg.hellings
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: qt-reviews
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-07-13 02:45 UTC by Christopher Meng
Modified: 2015-02-25 13:29 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: minutor-2.0.2-0.1.20141209gitce24a81.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-02-25 13:26:48 UTC
Type: ---
greg.hellings: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christopher Meng 2014-07-13 02:45:38 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Minutor is an easy to use mapping tool for Minecraft 1.2+. It lets you view and inspect your Minecraft worlds. It is fast, portable, and expandable.
Fedora Account System Username: cicku

Comment 1 greg.hellings 2014-12-11 05:36:05 UTC
Taking this for review.

Comment 2 greg.hellings 2014-12-11 05:50:03 UTC
Everything looks good to me.

[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
[+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+] 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[+] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[+] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[+] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[+] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[+] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[+] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Comment 3 Christopher Meng 2014-12-11 08:32:21 UTC
Thank you.

I will push it soon.

Comment 4 greg.hellings 2015-02-12 04:54:53 UTC
Looks like this is still pending.

Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2015-02-13 01:32:57 UTC
Rebasing to the latest git snapshot for minecraft 1.8.


New Package SCM Request
Package Name: minutor
Short Description: Minecraft Mapping tool
Upstream URL:
Owners: cicku
Branches: f22 f21 f20

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-02-13 13:35:42 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2015-02-16 04:03:50 UTC
minutor-2.0.2-0.1.20141209gitce24a81.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-02-16 04:03:56 UTC
minutor-2.0.2-0.1.20141209gitce24a81.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-02-17 08:03:01 UTC
minutor-2.0.2-0.1.20141209gitce24a81.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-02-25 13:26:48 UTC
minutor-2.0.2-0.1.20141209gitce24a81.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-02-25 13:29:28 UTC
minutor-2.0.2-0.1.20141209gitce24a81.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.