https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431322 Nemanja Milosevic <nmilosevnm@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nmilosevnm@gmail. | |com) | --- Comment #4 from Nemanja Milosevic <nmilosevnm@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #1) > Issues: > ======= > - 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. > Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Fixed this one, it actually should say GPLv3 and BSD, because some files are licensed separately. > - glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has > *.gschema.xml files. > Note: gschema file(s) in onboard > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema This one I left out, because the Packaging guidelines specifically say not to use glib-compile-schemas on F23+ and I am building for F24+. > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > contains icons. > Note: icons in onboard > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache Fixed. > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > file-validate if there is such a file. Fixed. > - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package > contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. > Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in onboard > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- > database Fixed. > - There are some whitespaces at EOLs Fixed. > [!]: 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". > 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/cheese/Personal/1431322-onboard/licensecheck.txt As stated above, fixed. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests, but I now mention it in the spec file. > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 22108160 bytes in /usr/share > onboard-1.4.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm:22108160 > See: Split into onboard and onboard-data which is noarch now. > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) Modified it after the build to include a license properly last time, sorry! :( > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: onboard-1.4.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > onboard-debuginfo-1.4.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > onboard-1.4.1-1.fc24.src.rpm > onboard.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/onboard/layouts 2755 > onboard.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/onboard/themes 2755 > ... Fixed. New SPEC: https://pagure.io/onboard-rpm/raw/master/f/onboard.spec New SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nmilosev/onboard/fedora-25-x86_64/00527023-onboard/onboard-1.4.1-2.fc25.src.rpm New builds are also on COPR. Last note, on one of my machines packages build normally, but on the other rpmlint throws a lot of errors with python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value like here also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409376 (the package still builds and works just fine - Py 3.5.2) Any ideas what is the reason Thank you again for your thorough review! Kind regards, Nemanja -- 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