https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426994 Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Tonet, Thanks for looking ofr a solution on the archs problem. Note that rpmlint throw the following warnings: rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.src:42: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/rhythmbox/plugins/alternative-toolbar/ The first warning should be ignored as stated in [1]. For the second one, as we can see in [2], [3] and [4], it makes more sense to make your package arched. Since I took to long to realize this, I am also including a new version of the spec file here for you and approving your package! Note that by changing the package from an noarch package to an arched package, rpmlint will trigger an error about not having a binary file in an arched package. The other rhythmbox plugins are also arched and do not have binary files as well, and since one of them is packaged with rhythmbox itself, I will understand this is the right wat to go with rhythmbox plugins. Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.spec SRPM URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar-0.17.3-4.fc25.src.rpm Package approved. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436500 [2] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rhythmbox-ampache.git/tree/rhythmbox-ampache.spec?id=540c6b5f52ff1be27b4897f0da5e255cf53a0611#n62 [3] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/203 [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222484 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar-0.17.3-3.fc27.noarch.rpm rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar-0.17.3-3.fc27.src.rpm rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.src:42: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/rhythmbox/plugins/alternative-toolbar/ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rhythmbox Provides -------- rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar: rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fossfreedom/alternative-toolbar/archive/v0.17.3/alternative-toolbar-0.17.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0abd67515e766d1611d2a206eb0e31f6553c0c6e3db84a6b08a0723a511aa138 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0abd67515e766d1611d2a206eb0e31f6553c0c6e3db84a6b08a0723a511aa138 -- 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