https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #31 from Pete Walter <walter.pete@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks Jeremy! I've put my replies inline. (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #29) > 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 || : This is not needed these days. gtk3 includes a file trigger that does it automatically. > - 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 Done. > ===== 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 Thanks. I added the Requires. The BuildRequires aren't needed here. > [!]: 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 Done. > >And change the following: > %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ > %{_libdir}/mozilla/ > %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ > >to: > %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/* > %{_libdir}/mozilla/* > %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/* Sorry, the suggested chrome and chromium directory changes are wrong and would result in unowned directories. Fixed the %{_libdir}/mozilla issue and added a dep on mozilla-filesystem instead. > [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 Can you elaborate why you want me to change this? The former is much more clear on what is actually being used ... > [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. Yes, it needs to be in /usr/lib64/mozilla. > >Second, files placed in %{_sysconfdir} need to be prefixed with %config like so: > > %config %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ No, this is incorrect. These files aren't meant to be user editable config files. > >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