[Bug 1509679] Review Request: rofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux