https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #29 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in chrome-gnome-shell See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache >Please add the following (explained in the wiki): %post /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : %postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : fi %posttrans /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. >You need to add this: %check desktop-file-validate %{_datadir}/applications/org.gnome.ChromeGnomeShell.desktop ===== MUST items ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 73 files have unknown license. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/gnome, /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16/apps, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/icons/gnome/128x128, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48, /usr/share/icons/gnome/16x16, /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/apps >This is due to a missing requires, please add: BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme BuildRequires: gnome-icon-theme BuildRequires: dbus Requires: dbus Requires: gnome-icon-theme Requires: hicolor-icon-theme [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/mozilla(mozilla- filesystem), /etc/opt(filesystem) >Please remove the following line, this dir should not be owned by this package: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/opt >And change the following: %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ %{_libdir}/mozilla/ %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ >to: %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/* %{_libdir}/mozilla/* %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/* [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 [-]: 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. [-]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. >See above, some requires are missing. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [-]: 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). >Change the following: BuildRequires: /usr/bin/base64 BuildRequires: /usr/bin/head BuildRequires: /usr/bin/jq BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sha256sum BuildRequires: /usr/bin/tr >to: BuildRequires: coreutils BuildRequires: jq [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. >Mentioned above, missing %check [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.src.rpm chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. >Does the FF plugin have to be placed in /usr/lib64/mozilla for a 64bit system? or will it work just as fine in /usr/lib/mozilla? If it needs the arched folder, you can ignore this error, if it doesn't, please change this to a noarch package. >Second, files placed in %{_sysconfdir} need to be prefixed with %config like so: %config %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ >The other error has been discussed above, and the remaining warnings can be ignored. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: no-binary chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/opt chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/org.gnome.chrome_gnome_shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/policies/managed/chrome-gnome-shell.json chrome-gnome-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrome-gnome-shell 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. >Same as above Requires -------- chrome-gnome-shell (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 gnome-shell python(abi) python3-gobject-base python3-requests Provides -------- chrome-gnome-shell: chrome-gnome-shell chrome-gnome-shell(x86-64) python3.5dist(chrome-gnome-shell) python3dist(chrome-gnome-shell) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343710 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx