Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gsim85 - An 8085 microprocessor simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
Summary: Review Request: gsim85 - An 8085 microprocessor simulator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fabian@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gsim85.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gsim85-0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm
Project URL: http://gsim85.sourceforge.net/
Description: It is an 8085 simulator. it is having very user friendly graphical user interface. It can be used to test 8085 programs before actualy implementing them on target board.
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1102409
rpmlint output: [fab@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint gsim85* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[fab@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gsim85-0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-03 18:41:28 EDT --- There is a small cosmetic issue with the desktop file: the icon should either contain the full path to the file or just the name (without extension). Your desktop file contains name.extension. As a minor non-blocking issue, you have a duplicate BR, gtk2-devel is brought in by libglade2-devel.
It would be awesome if you also convince the installer to preserve the timestamps of the pixmaps. Given the build log, I'd say that adding INSTALL="install -p" to "make install "should do it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-02-03 19:15:23 EDT --- Thanks for your inputs
(In reply to comment #1)
There is a small cosmetic issue with the desktop file: the icon should either contain the full path to the file or just the name (without extension). Your desktop file contains name.extension.
Added a small patch
As a minor non-blocking issue, you have a duplicate BR, gtk2-devel is brought in by libglade2-devel.
fixed
It would be awesome if you also convince the installer to preserve the timestamps of the pixmaps. Given the build log, I'd say that adding INSTALL="install -p" to "make install "should do it.
fixed
Here are the updated files
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gsim85.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gsim85-0.2-2.fc10.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-03 19:38:28 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [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. License type: GPLv2+ ==> see also note 1 [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 349a5260f40074ec7b7167ce554b4e0b6841cfc0 gsim85-0.2-2.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] 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. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Final Notes === 1. Upstream's intention regarding the license is clearly expressed (help.c prints the GPLv2+ license & COPYING is bundled) but please ask them to include the license info in all source files.
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-02-04 04:23:02 EDT --- I filled a bug about the statement in the source file header.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-02-04 04:26:24 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gsim85 Short Description: An 8085 microprocessor simulator Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-02-04 05:15:04 EDT --- External Bug reports for tracking
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2563186&gro... http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2562577&gro... http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2561951&gro... http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2561937&gro...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
Chitlesh GOORAH cgoorah@yahoo.com.au changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cgoorah@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #7 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoorah@yahoo.com.au 2009-02-04 13:39:07 EDT --- Looking forward to add it under FEL-11 livedvd :D
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-02-05 22:08:46 EDT --- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:38:15 EDT --- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1537 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1513
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh@gmail.com 2010-09-12 14:57:40 EDT --- Fabian and I agreed that as from now, I'll maintain gsim85 for EL branches while he will continue to maintain the Fedora branches.
Package CVS Change Request ======================= Package Name: gsim85 Short Description: An 8085 microprocessor simulator Owners: fab chitlesh Branches: EL-5 EL-6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-09-25 00:42:48 EDT --- Sorry for the delay here, our script to process these doesn't understand "Package CVS Change Request". Can you use 'Package Change Request' and reset the flag when you are ready?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh@gmail.com 2010-10-05 15:36:38 EDT --- Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: gsim85 Short Description: An 8085 microprocessor simulator Owners: fab chitlesh Branches: EL-5 EL-6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
--- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-10-06 22:52:50 EDT --- Somehow process-git-requests doesn't seem to parse the branches but I don't see why not.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846
--- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-10-10 00:21:15 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org