https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807753 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - rm this file in %install, %exclude is only used to sort the files between multiple packages: %exclude %{_libdir}/libydotool.a - do not gzip the man pages, the compression is handled by rpm - specify the mode install -p -m 0644 Daemon/%{name}.service %{buildroot}/%{_unitdir} - you need to add the systemd scriptlets, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros […] %post %systemd_post %{name}.service %preun %systemd_preun %{name}.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart %{name}.service - Be more specific: %{_libdir}/libydotool.so %{_unitdir}/%{name}.service - The library must be versioned. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning Downstream .so name versioning In cases where upstream ships unversioned .so library (so this is not needed for plugins, drivers, etc.), the packager MUST try to convince upstream to start versioning it. If that fails due to unwilling or unresponsive upstream, the packager may start versioning downstream but this must be done with caution and ideally only in rare cases. We don’t want to create a library that could conflict with upstream if they later start providing versioned shared libraries. Under no circumstances should the unversioned library be shipped in Fedora. - add a comment explaining why the patch is needed. - add a newline between your changelog entries - Fix the changelog entries: ydotool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.9-0.1.20200322git.9c3a4e7.fc31 ['0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33', '0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7'] Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in ydotool See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ydotool/review-ydotool/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [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: ydotool-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debuginfo-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debugsource-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.src.rpm ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.9-0.1.20200322git.9c3a4e7.fc31 ['0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33', '0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7'] ydotool.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libydotool.so libydotool.so ydotool.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libydotool.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ydotool.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ydotool.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 13: %{version}-orig ydotool-%{version} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 18 warnings. -- 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
