https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679 Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > ===== 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: "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat License", "Unknown or > generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 74 files have unknown license. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. see [comment 0], the libraries are built as static and included directly in resulting rofi binary. They are mentioned explicitly: # https://github.com/sardemff7/libgwater Provides: bundled(libgwater) # https://github.com/sardemff7/libnkutils Provides: bundled(libnkutils) Note that versions are practically (in a predictable way that would help in repoqueries) indeterminable ([comment 8]). > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Rofi is a GUI application, however desktop file doesn't appear to be a necessity, given the program meant to run for the whole GUI sessions and, quite on the contrary, to deal with desktop files of other programs. > [x]: 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). For the sake of completeness, I'd suggest: s#/usr/bin/${interpreter}#%{_bindir}/${interpreter}# but is not a blocker here (note that possibly python* dealing in the same location in the spec file is merely an overapproximation, so no crossing into Python specific guidelines takes place, I'd suggest dropping those mentions, actually). > [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. > [x]: 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. > [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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]: 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: > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Rather a false positive raised, main building command is fine -> [x] > [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rofi- > devel , rofi-devel-doc , rofi-themes , rofi-debuginfo , rofi- > debugsource > [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. > [x]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [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: No rpmlint messages. > [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. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: rofi-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm > rofi-devel-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm > rofi-devel-doc-1.5.1-5.fc30.noarch.rpm > rofi-themes-1.5.1-5.fc30.noarch.rpm > rofi-debuginfo-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm > rofi-debugsource-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm > rofi-1.5.1-5.fc30.src.rpm > rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen > rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen > rofi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > rofi-themes.noarch: W: no-documentation > rofi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen > rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen > rofi.src:43: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libgwater) > rofi.src:45: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libnkutils) see above > 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: rofi-debuginfo-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory > rofi-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> > rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen > rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen > rofi.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> > rofi-devel-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> > rofi-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> > rofi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > rofi-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> > rofi-themes.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> > rofi-themes.noarch: W: no-documentation > 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Bogus complaints about opening URLs, perhaps mock container without net access. > > > > > Requires > -------- > rofi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > rofi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/bash > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libcairo.so.2()(64bit) > libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) > libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) > libpthread.so.0()(64bit) > librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) > libstartup-notification-1.so.0()(64bit) > libxcb-ewmh.so.2()(64bit) > libxcb-icccm.so.4()(64bit) > libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) > libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) > libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit) > libxcb-xkb.so.1()(64bit) > libxcb-xrm.so.0()(64bit) > libxcb.so.1()(64bit) > libxkbcommon-x11.so.0()(64bit) > libxkbcommon-x11.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) > libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) > libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) > libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.7.0)(64bit) > rofi-themes > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > rofi-devel-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > rofi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/pkg-config > pkgconfig > pkgconfig(cairo) > pkgconfig(glib-2.0) > pkgconfig(gmodule-2.0) > rofi > > rofi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > rofi-themes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > rofi-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > rofi-debuginfo > rofi-debuginfo(x86-64) > > rofi: > bundled(libgwater) > bundled(libnkutils) > rofi > rofi(x86-64) > > rofi-devel-doc: > rofi-devel-doc > > rofi-devel: > pkgconfig(rofi) > rofi-devel > rofi-devel(x86-64) > > rofi-debugsource: > rofi-debugsource > rofi-debugsource(x86-64) > > rofi-themes: > rofi-themes > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi/releases/download/1.5.1/rofi-1.5.1.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e99817668317979a5cf9a931d28cbb54291e46f3b753b03a9368fc31dc1f83b5 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e99817668317979a5cf9a931d28cbb54291e46f3b753b03a9368fc31dc1f83b5 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn rofi-1.5.1-5.fc28.src.rpm > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ > Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP > Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 The concern about the in-spec interpreter mangling loop is not a blocker per se though would be good to tackle it eventually. That being said, setting fedora-review+. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
