https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571 Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmoune@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune | |@gmail.com) | --- Comment #31 from Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmoune@xxxxxxxxx> --- Unfortunately I still found a few things and ran a few scratch builds myself. I suspect this will be the last iteration! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ You get gcc in your build root because in your build dependency tree you eventually drag libtool and it requires gcc. You should still explicitly add one: Requires: gcc ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. As you pointed out, static libraries are not explicitly prohibited so let's treat this one as a false-positive. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dridi/fedora/FedoraReview/1671571-playerctl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0 Change the following line like this: -%{_libdir}/girepository-1.0/Playerctl-2.0.typelib +%{_libdir}/girepository-1.0/ [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gtk-doc( [...]) This is compliant as per the guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Despite an update to version 2.0.2 the last changelog entry still refers to 2.0.1 and I'm also not sure about the indentation of changelog entries. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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). [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. I think the following from the devel sub-package is superfluous: Requires: pkgconfig(gobject-introspection-1.0) I realized that BuildRequires are properly set thanks to the pkg-config file shipped in the devel package and I shouldn't have asked this to be added in the first place. [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. [ ]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: playerctl-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in playerctl , playerctl-docs , playerctl-static False-positives. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34107470 [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: playerctl-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm playerctl-devel-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm playerctl-docs-2.0.2-1.fc31.noarch.rpm playerctl-libs-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm playerctl-static-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm playerctl-debuginfo-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm playerctl-debugsource-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm playerctl-2.0.2-1.fc31.src.rpm playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US statusline -> status line, status-line, stateliness playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US introspectable -> introspect able, introspect-able, introspective playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spotify -> spottily playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vlc -> vac, VLF playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmp -> mp, bump, imp playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmus -> cums, mus, emus playerctl.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.1-1 ['2.0.2-1.fc31', '2.0.2-1'] playerctl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation playerctl-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation playerctl-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation playerctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US statusline -> status line, status-line, stateliness playerctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US introspectable -> introspect able, introspect-able, introspective playerctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spotify -> spottily playerctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vlc -> vac, VLF playerctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmp -> mp, bump, imp playerctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmus -> cums, mus, emus 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: playerctl-libs-debuginfo-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm playerctl-debuginfo-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- playerctl-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US statusline -> status line, status-line, stateliness playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US introspectable -> introspect able, introspect-able, introspective playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spotify -> spottily playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vlc -> vac, VLF playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmp -> mp, bump, imp playerctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmus -> cums, mus, emus playerctl.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.1-1 ['2.0.2-1.fc31', '2.0.2-1'] playerctl-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation playerctl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/acrisci/playerctl/releases/download/v2.0.2/playerctl-2.0.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c84637893b3abc52eb7acb196259780af7cf99197aada7f0eab532b61c2d6751 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c84637893b3abc52eb7acb196259780af7cf99197aada7f0eab532b61c2d6751 Requires -------- playerctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libplayerctl.so.2()(64bit) playerctl-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) playerctl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libplayerctl.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig(gio-2.0) pkgconfig(gio-unix-2.0) pkgconfig(gobject-2.0) pkgconfig(gobject-introspection-1.0) playerctl(x86-64) playerctl-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): playerctl playerctl-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) playerctl(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) playerctl-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): playerctl-devel(x86-64) playerctl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): playerctl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- playerctl: playerctl playerctl(x86-64) playerctl-devel: pkgconfig(playerctl) playerctl-devel playerctl-devel(x86-64) playerctl-docs: playerctl-docs playerctl-libs: libplayerctl.so.2()(64bit) playerctl-libs playerctl-libs(x86-64) playerctl-static: playerctl-static playerctl-static(x86-64) playerctl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) playerctl-debuginfo playerctl-debuginfo(x86-64) playerctl-debugsource: playerctl-debugsource playerctl-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (37b2325) last change: 2019-03-10 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1671571 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, PHP, Ruby, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
