https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211831 --- Comment #40 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- > There is _nothing wrong_ with a longer explicit %files section, > which only includes what %find_lang doesn't > (not limited to the /usr/share/copyq/locale directory). If Gerald prefers > > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/locale > %{_datadir}/%{name}/themes/ > >nothing wrong with that. > I don't understand why it's felt as important to request including > only %_datadir/%name just to save two lines (or a few more in the future). I have not any problem to list all directories explicitly except files listed twice. I thought that it was not so important. Gerald, you can follow Michael's advice of course. - INSTALL is not required for packaging - Have you looked why some tests fail ? If you execute "copyq tests", not all finish successfully. You can run all tests (or specific tests) by %check xvfb-run -a ./copyq tests in the RPM packaging - copyq does not work for me. Try to strace it, a lot of icons are not found. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/copyq/locale/copyq_af.qm See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1211831-copyq/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in copyq [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: 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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: copyq-2.4.6-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm copyq-2.4.6-2.fc23.src.rpm copyq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US searchable -> search able, search-able, unsearchable copyq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copyq copyq.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/copyq/INSTALL copyq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US searchable -> search able, search-able, unsearchable 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- copyq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libICE.so.6()(64bit) libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtScript.so.4()(64bit) libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) libQtTest.so.4()(64bit) libQtWebKit.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- copyq: application() application(copyq.desktop) copyq copyq(x86-64) libitemdata.so()(64bit) libitemencrypted.so()(64bit) libitemfakevim.so()(64bit) libitemimage.so()(64bit) libitemnotes.so()(64bit) libitemsync.so()(64bit) libitemtags.so()(64bit) libitemtext.so()(64bit) libitemweb.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemdata.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemencrypted.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemfakevim.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemimage.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemnotes.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemsync.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemtags.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemtext.so copyq: /usr/lib64/copyq/plugins/libitemweb.so Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/copyq/files/copyq-2.4.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 04e6b944f8d85ee50ce40814fc44cfa1fec21a1957fd48ea155378b3fedaf895 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04e6b944f8d85ee50ce40814fc44cfa1fec21a1957fd48ea155378b3fedaf895 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1211831 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review