Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I'm not a sponsor, so I can't accept your package, but I want to use your application in Fedora so I'll start the review, hopefully to speed up the inclusion. :) There are many problems with your package, but most of them are trivial to fix. I am a bit perplexed by the licensing of Bijiben, so I'm blocking FE-LEGAL, but I don't think there is any major problem, I'm just not sure what value to use for the License tag. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: gtk-update-icon-cache is not invoked => See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache [!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. => See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop => The desktop file is installed by the Makefile, so you could use %install [... snip ...] desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop [!]: 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. => See details below [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => Package bundles libgd. I believe this is fine given the nature of libgd, but you must add: Provides: bundled(libgd) [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) => I'm fairly confident that you will not build this package in an old EPEL, so please remove the clean section. [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. => Shouldn't %{_datadir}/help/C/%{name} be marked as %doc? [!]: The spec file handles locales properly. => See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. => Package drops a file in %{_datadir}/gnome-shell/search-providers/ This folder is owned by gnome-shell, but adding a requirement on it would be bad for people who want to use the application in other desktops. Please have bijiben own the folder. => Package drops a file in %{_libdir}/%{name}. Please own this folder. [!]: Uses parallel make. => Use make %{?_smp_mflags} [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define url_ver %(echo %{version}|cut -d. -f1,2) => Use %global instead [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). => Looking at gnome-photos, it neither provides not requires 'libgd.so()' It also doesn't even install it at all. Shouldn't you be doing the same thing? [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. => Please pass INSTALL="/usr/bin/install -p" to the make install command ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. => See details below [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => Package bundles libgd. I believe this is fine given the nature of libgd, but you must add: Provides: bundled(libgd) [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. => Note that many people prefer leaving an empty line between changelog entries, as it makes the whole thing more readable. This is purely a matter of preference though, not a blocker. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. => I'm fairly confident that you will not build this package in an old EPEL, so please remove this line. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. => Shouldn't %{_datadir}/help/C/%{name} be marked as %doc? [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: glib-compile-schemas is run if required [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. => Bijiben seems to be a bit of a mix and match of licenses: - GPLv3+ ./src/bjb-app-menu.c: ./src/bjb-controller.h: ./src/bjb-controller.c: ./src/bjb-note-view.c: ./src/bjb-bijiben.c: ./src/bjb-note-tag-dialog.c: ./src/bjb-main-toolbar.h: ./src/bjb-color-button.h: ./src/bjb-share.h: ./src/bjb-share.c: ./src/bjb-main-toolbar.c: ./src/bjb-color-button.c: ./src/bjb-settings.c: ./src/bjb-main.c: ./src/bjb-bijiben.h: ./src/bjb-main-view.c: ./src/libbiji/biji-string.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-timeout.c: ./src/libbiji/libbiji.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-date-time.c: ./src/libbiji/biji-note-book.c: ./src/libbiji/biji-timeout.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-tracker.c: ./src/libbiji/biji-note-obj.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-date-time.h: ./src/libbiji/editor/biji-webkit-editor.h: ./src/libbiji/editor/biji-webkit-editor.c: ./src/libbiji/biji-note-obj.c: ./src/libbiji/deserializer/biji-lazy-deserializer.c: ./src/libbiji/deserializer/biji-lazy-deserializer.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-string.c: ./src/libbiji/biji-tracker.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-note-id.c: ./src/libbiji/serializer/biji-lazy-serializer.c: ./src/libbiji/serializer/biji-lazy-serializer.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-note-id.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-zeitgeist.h: ./src/libbiji/biji-zeitgeist.c: ./src/bjb-note-tag-dialog.h: - LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 ./src/libbiji/editor/biji-editor-utils.h: ./src/libbiji/editor/biji-editor-utils.c: ./src/libbiji/editor/biji-editor-selection.h: ./src/libbiji/editor/biji-editor-selection.c: => These don't attribute copyright to anybody. They seem to be coming from Evolution? - GPLv2+ ./src/bjb-search-toolbar.c => This doesn't attribute copyright to anybody, is that a wrong copy-paste? ./src/bjb-selection-toolbar.c: ./src/bjb-editor-toolbar.c: ./src/bijiben-shell-search-provider.c => These attribute copyright to Red Hat but not you, is that a wrong copy-paste? ./src/bjb-selection-toolbar.h ./src/bjb-editor-toolbar.h => These talk about GNOME Photos and attribute copyright to Red Hat but not you, is that a wrong copy-paste? - LGPLv2+ ./libgd/* => The result of all this would be something like: GPLv3+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ But to be honest, I have no idea what happens with such a complicated resulting license, so I'm blocking FE-LEGAL :-/ [!]: The spec file handles locales properly. => See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. => Package drops a file in %{_datadir}/gnome-shell/search-providers/ This folder is owned by gnome-shell, but adding a requirement on it would be bad for people who want to use the application in other desktops. Please have bijiben own the folder. => Package drops a file in %{_libdir}/%{name}. Please own this folder. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 5 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make. => Use make %{?_smp_mflags} [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define url_ver %(echo %{version}|cut -d. -f1,2) => Use %global [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) => I'm fairly confident that you will not build this package in an old EPEL, so please remove the clean section. [-]: 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). => Looking at gnome-photos, it neither provides not requires 'libgd.so()' It also doesn't even install it at all. Shouldn't you be doing the same thing? [?]: Package functions as described. [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]: 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. => Please pass INSTALL="/usr/bin/install -p" to the make install command [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bijiben-3.7.91-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm bijiben.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bijiben 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. => You're upstream, so you could consider adding a man page for bijiben, but feel free to ignore this warning, it's all but a review blocker. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint bijiben bijiben.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bijiben 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' => You're upstream, so you could consider adding a man page for bijiben, but feel free to ignore this warning, it's all but a review blocker. Requires -------- bijiben (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit) libXdamage.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libclutter-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libclutter-gtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcogl-pango.so.12()(64bit) libcogl.so.12()(64bit) libgd.so()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libjavascriptcoregtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libtracker-sparql-0.16.so.0()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libwebkitgtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.2)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libzeitgeist-1.0.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- bijiben: bijiben bijiben(x86-64) libgd.so()(64bit) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/note) Unversioned so-files -------------------- bijiben: /usr/lib64/bijiben/libgd.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://download.gnome.org/sources/bijiben/3.7/bijiben-3.7.91.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6835fd76c74c3de363759767367a293b56c72f2fdb74dc1f88d50ec291dca545 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6835fd76c74c3de363759767367a293b56c72f2fdb74dc1f88d50ec291dca545 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 919265 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0IMUrdS97h&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review