https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1732705 Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Url and Source0 addresses are Ok. Source0 archive (SHA-256: 7df4d62607754225f2a02c61e56a5fb1a33f564d7df50f7fa26d8485924bc4d4) is original. Ok. Summary verified from man/tickit.7. Ok. Description is Ok. License verified from LICENSE. Ok. FIX: Constrain 'pkgconfig(unibilium)' dependency with '>= 1.1.0' (Makefile:22). FIX: Build-require 'pkgconfig(ncursesw)' (Makefile:25) or 'ncurses-devel' (Makefile:29) if unibilium condition is false. TODO: I recommend generating src/xterm-palette.inc and src/linechars.inc from sources by deleting and build-requiring perl-interpreter and other Perl modules. TODO: Package ./examples as a documentation. TODO: You can try compiling examples ('make examples') as a part of %check section. TODO: You can remove calling %ldconfig_scriptlets. It's not needed for Fedora. All tests pass Ok. TODO: %files section should package shared libraries with a full soname. E.g. use '%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.2' instead of '%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.*' (<https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files>). $ rpmlint libtickit.spec ../SRPMS/libtickit-0.3.2-1.fc31.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/libtickit-* 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libtickit-0.3.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 24 12:50 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 24 12:50 /usr/lib/.build-id/e3 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40 Jul 24 12:50 /usr/lib/.build-id/e3/abd1fcc80912dd09d8bd60f0b4bdd1e07775f9 -> ../../../../usr/lib64/libtickit.so.2.0.2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Jul 24 12:49 /usr/lib64/libtickit.so.2 -> libtickit.so.2.0.2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 135544 Jul 24 12:49 /usr/lib64/libtickit.so.2.0.2 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 24 12:50 /usr/share/doc/libtickit -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3242 Apr 12 17:53 /usr/share/doc/libtickit/CHANGES drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 24 12:50 /usr/share/licenses/libtickit -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1103 Apr 12 17:53 /usr/share/licenses/libtickit/LICENSE [libtick-devel listing omitted.] File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libtickit-0.3.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) 1 libtermkey.so.1()(64bit) 1 libunibilium.so.4()(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libtickit-devel-0.3.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 /usr/bin/pkg-config 1 libtermkey-devel(x86-64) 1 libtickit(x86-64) = 0.3.2-1.fc31 1 libtickit.so.2()(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libtickit-0.3.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libtickit = 0.3.2-1.fc31 1 libtickit(x86-64) = 0.3.2-1.fc31 1 libtickit.so.2()(64bit) $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libtickit-devel-0.3.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libtickit-devel = 0.3.2-1.fc31 1 libtickit-devel(x86-64) = 0.3.2-1.fc31 1 pkgconfig(tickit) = 0.3.2 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/libtickit{,-devel}-0.3.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok. The package builds in F31 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36457798) Ok. Otherwise the package is line with Fedora packaging guidelines. Please correct all 'FIX' items and consider fixing all 'TODO' items before building this package. Resolution: APPROVED. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
