https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #33 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxx> --- More inline comments: (In reply to Pete Walter from comment #31) > 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. Are you not including epel packages? Firefox and chromium should be provided for all branches. > > > > - 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. Fair enough. > > > > [!]: 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. Since %{_sysconfdir}/opt/chrome/ is from a thirdparty package, that's probably fine, but %{_sysconfdir}/chromium/ is owned by the fedora chromium package... perhaps we should bug the maintainer to add a "chromium-filesystem" subpackage: $ dnf whatprovides /etc/chromium Last metadata expiration check: 5 days, 1:48:38 ago on Sun Mar 5 20:02:08 2017. chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64 : Support for managing GNOME Shell : Extensions through web browsers Repo : @System chromium-56.0.2924.87-3.fc25.x86_64 : A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser Repo : updates chromium-53.0.2785.116-1.fc25.x86_64 : A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser Repo : fedora > > > > [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 ... I realize, but the requires are not being generated correctly when probing the binaries built from mock. $ rpm -qpR chrome-gnome-shell-8.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/python3 gnome-shell python(abi) = 3.5 python3-gobject-base python3-requests rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 > > > [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. Alright, this can be ignored then. > > > >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. I guess this is fine then. > > > >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