https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689634 Jan Staněk <jstanek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jstanek@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jstanek@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jan Staněk <jstanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - BuildRequires should follow meson constraints (since meson refuses to run if they are violated): - meson >= 0.47.0 - pkgconfig(wayland-protocols) >= 1.14 - The package is built without icon support (according to the meson.build). If this is not intentional, these BR are missing: - pkgconfig(gdk-3.0) - pkgconfig(gdk-pixbuf-2.0) - Package does not contain systemd unit file for DBus activation. Upstream do not ship it, so I'm willing to let this one through for the initial review; however, it should be added and ideally submitted to upstream as well. Example (adapted from dunst): https://gist.github.com/d8e347c73e3355f3bfd9fcb83afc26ea - Missing newline at the end of the SPEC file, confuses diff check (see below). ===== 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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]: 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 10240 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: [-]: 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 mako- debuginfo , mako-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. [-]: %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: [!]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mako-1.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm mako-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm mako-debugsource-1.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm mako-1.2-1.fc30.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mako-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # False positives, URL is valid mako.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/mako <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> mako-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/mako <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> mako-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/mako <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jstanek/redhat/fedora-review/mako.spec 2019-03-18 09:26:04.657725784 +0100 +++ /home/jstanek/redhat/fedora-review/review-mako/srpm-unpacked/mako.spec 2019-03-17 08:18:09.000000000 +0100 @@ -41,3 +41,3 @@ %changelog * Sun Mar 17 2019 Timothée Floure <fnux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2-1 -- Let there be package \ No newline at end of file +- Let there be package Requires -------- mako (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_222)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mako-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mako-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mako: mako mako(x86-64) mako-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mako-debuginfo mako-debuginfo(x86-64) mako-debugsource: mako-debugsource mako-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emersion/mako/archive/v1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56f083e355295cf11831f4c3f54a95b04df1a352232ab24b0cd30c3255949e0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56f083e355295cf11831f4c3f54a95b04df1a352232ab24b0cd30c3255949e0f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --name=mako 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 -- 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
