https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, Quick problem: - LICENSE should be in %license, not %doc - Use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags} - The source file is just name v2.2.tar.gz: rename it to a more explicit name: Here's how to do it: Source0: https://github.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/archive/v2.2.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz. - If possible, use pkgconfig to declare -devel BR. For example pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) - rpmlint fails because data/gcolor3.appdata.xml validation fails because of two 404 errors: gcolor3-2.2/data/gcolor3.appdata.xml: FAILED: • url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Unia/unia.github.io/hugo/static/images/projects/gcolor3/saved.png] • url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Unia/unia.github.io/hugo/static/images/projects/gcolor3/picker.png] Validation of files failed unia.github.io doesn't exist anymore. The URLs have changed to: - https://hjdskes.github.io/img/projects/gcolor3/saved.png - https://hjdskes.github.io/img/projects/gcolor3/picker.png Report the bug upstream or better, propose them a pull request to fix this error. You can also add a patch fixing it in your SPEC with a comment to the bug number, until they release a fix upstream. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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 LICENSE is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gcolor3/review-gcolor3/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [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. [-]: 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 gcolor3 [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gcolor3-debuginfo [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. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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: gcolor3-2.2-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm gcolor3-debuginfo-2.2-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm gcolor3-2.2-2.fc27.src.rpm gcolor3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii gcolor3.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gcolor3.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gcolor3.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gcolor3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gcolor3 gcolor3.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml gcolor3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. I'm looking for a sponsor too! You should add a "Block:" to this bug to FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- 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
