https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467052 --- Comment #8 from Björn "besser82" Esser <besser82@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/gnome-password-generator See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ---> This is an un-retirement review, so it is to be expected there's already the same package present. - Desktop-file-install adds vendorization. ---> This was banned from Fedora about 4 years ago. See: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1077 - Installed appdata files must be validated. ---> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage ===== 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 (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/vm_shared/fedora/review/1467052-gnome-password- generator/licensecheck.txt [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 [x]: 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in gnome-password-generator ---> Scriptlets are fine. [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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Issues are present. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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). [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ---> Timestamps are not preserved, neither by Makefile, nor when invoking install from spec file. [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]: 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: gnome-password-generator-2.0.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm gnome-password-generator-2.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm gnome-password-generator.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-password-generator 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory gnome-password-generator.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-password-generator 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- gnome-password-generator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 hicolor-icon-theme python3-gobject Provides -------- gnome-password-generator: appdata() appdata(gnome-password-generator.appdata.xml) application() application(gnome-password-generator.desktop) gnome-password-generator Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Jenselme/gnome-password-generator/archive/v2.0.1/gnome-password-generator-2.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b077b4ba9571738aa1976d9d4a6e17412e883392b872b786edd715dc48e9e472 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b077b4ba9571738aa1976d9d4a6e17412e883392b872b786edd715dc48e9e472 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1467052 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ===== Solution ===== NOT approved. ===== Additional information ===== You should add a %check section running `desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/*.desktop` (as desktop file is installed from Makefile) and `appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/appdata/*.appdata.xml`. You can drop `desktop-file-install` from %install section then. Maybe you want to consider my previous comments and merge my pull request on github, release another version and update your package to this. -- 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
