https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845667 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Group is not used in Fedora - Use the %{qmake_qt5} macro - None of this is needed anymore: %post /usr/bin/update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : %postun /usr/bin/update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : %post -n libqxmledit -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -n libqxmledit -p /sbin/ldconfig - Add a comment above the patch to explain why it is needed. Give your patch a more explicit name. Patch0: %{name}-%{version}.patch - Shouldn't the lang files go with the binary? %files -n libqxmledit -f %{bigname}.lang - In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version, instead be more specific: %{_libdir}/libQXmlEdit*.so.* - Please explain the breakdown of the licenses in a comment: License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv3 and zlib - Source0: https://github.com/lbellonda/qxmledit/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz → Source0: https://github.com/lbellonda/qxmledit/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Add an explicit BR against gcc-c++ - The PDF is big, please split it in a separate doc noarch subpackage: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10362880 bytes in 4 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation - Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line: qxmledit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C QXmlEdit is a simple XML editor based on qt libraries. Its main features are unusual data visualization modes, qxmledit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C nice XML manipulation and presentation and it is multi platform. It can split very big XML files qxmledit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C into fragments, and compare XML files. It is one of the few graphical Open Source XSD viewers. 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++/ - Dist tag is present. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10362880 bytes in 4 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation - update-desktop-database must not be invoked in %post and %postun for Fedora 24 and later. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in qxmledit See: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&oldid=494555#desktop- database ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "zlib/libpng license". 2163 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/qxmledit/review- qxmledit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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. [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. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libqxmledit [?]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 11182080 bytes in /usr/share qxmledit-0.9.15-1.x86_64.rpm:10946560 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: qxmledit-0.9.15-1.x86_64.rpm libqxmledit-0.9.15-1.x86_64.rpm libqxmledit-devel-0.9.15-1.x86_64.rpm qxmledit-0.9.15-1.src.rpm qxmledit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C QXmlEdit is a simple XML editor based on qt libraries. Its main features are unusual data visualization modes, qxmledit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C nice XML manipulation and presentation and it is multi platform. It can split very big XML files qxmledit.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C into fragments, and compare XML files. It is one of the few graphical Open Source XSD viewers. qxmledit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qxmledit libqxmledit.x86_64: W: no-documentation libqxmledit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation qxmledit.src: E: description-line-too-long C QXmlEdit is a simple XML editor based on qt libraries. Its main features are unusual data visualization modes, qxmledit.src: E: description-line-too-long C nice XML manipulation and presentation and it is multi platform. It can split very big XML files qxmledit.src: E: description-line-too-long C into fragments, and compare XML files. It is one of the few graphical Open Source XSD viewers. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 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
