https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > BuildRequires: cairo-devel, enchant-devel, iso-codes-devel > BuildRequires: mesa-libGL-devel, libxkbcommon-x11-devel > BuildRequires: pango-devel, systemd-devel, systemd-rpm-macros > BuildRequires: wayland-devel, wayland-protocols-devel, libxcb-devel > BuildRequires: xcb-util-wm-devel, xcb-imdkit-devel, xcb-util-wm-devel > BuildRequires: libxkbfile-devel, fmt-devel, gdk-pixbuf2-devel > BuildRequires: cldr-emoji-annotation-devel, libuuid-devel > BuildRequires: expat-devel, json-c-devel, xkeyboard-config-devel > BuildRequires: xcb-util-keysyms-devel Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically? Also, can you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" format for the -devel packages? > %check > %ctest I see 2 failing tests when building the package locally: 34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580770 emoji.cpp:182] Trying to load emoji for en from /usr/share/unicode/cldr/common/annotations/en.xml: 2152 entry(s) loaded. 34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580788 addonmanager.cpp:271] Unloading addon emoji 31/36 Test #34: testemoji ........................ Passed 0.02 sec 32/36 Test #33: testisocodes ..................... Passed 0.04 sec 2: /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped) "$@" 2: /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process 33/36 Test #2: testdbus .........................***Failed 0.09 sec F2020-08-15 17:53:56.549280 testdbus.cpp:94] slot failed /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped) "$@" /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process Do the tests work for you? I had to disable the tests to run fedora-review. > %files -f %{name}.lang > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt > %doc README.md > %{_bindir}/* I think here you can list the binaries, since there aren't so many of them: %{_bindir}/fcitx5 %{_bindir}/fcitx5-configtool %{_bindir}/fcitx5-remote > %files devel > %{_includedir}/* > %{_libdir}/cmake/* > %{_libdir}/*.so > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/* Here I would be more specific like so: %{_includedir}/Fcitx5/ %{_libdir}/cmake/Fcitx5* # quite a lot of CMake dirs %{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/Fcitx5*.pc It's not mandatory, but it gives you tighter control over what goes into the package and avoids picking up unintended files :) > %files libs > %{_libdir}/%{name} > %{_libdir}/*.so.* Same here: %{_libdir}/%{name}/ # that way your package owns the entire dir %{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so.* You can be even more specific with the SO files to pick up soname bumps, but again that's not mandatory. The full review matrix below. I marked some items as "fail", because I think they might need to be discussed: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) Review: It might be because I had to build the packages on my F32 system manually, but please have a look at the errors at the end of the review. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. Review: Desktop files should be installed using one of the above commands. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Review: Present in fcitx5-libs. Is it possible to version them? [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages Review: It does, but tests had to be disabled. See earlier comments. [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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License". 588 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5/licensecheck.txt Review: Checked. Everything is licensed under LGPLv2. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Review: fcitx5-libs can theoretically be installed alone. Can you add a license file to it as well? [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps Review: Add a trailing backslash to properly own directories. Some of these dirs are provided by "hicolor-icon-theme" which should be added as a Requires. [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 [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Review: It depends on another package which is not yet available in the repos and some tests seem to fail. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Review: "hicolor-icon-theme" possibly missing as Requires. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fcitx5-libs Review: Should this be the case or can fcitx5-libs be installed independently? [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Review: Can't be verified yet due to failing tests and a dependency on a package in review. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Review: 2 tests fail. See earlier comments. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5662720 bytes in /usr/share Review: Worth moving stuff from %{_datadir}/%{name} to a separate fcitx5-data package? Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.4 starting (python version = 3.8.5)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.4 INFO: Mock Version: 2.4 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-libs-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-devel-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-debugsource-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-libs-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-libs-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-devel-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-debugsource-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5/fcitx5-libs-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: fcitx5-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-devel-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-libs-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-debugsource-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc32.src.rpm fcitx5.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fcitx -> deficit fcitx5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fcitx -> Deficit fcitx5.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/X11/xinit/xinput.d/fcitx5.conf fcitx5.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fcitx5 fcitx5.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fcitx5-configtool fcitx5.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fcitx5-remote fcitx5-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary fcitx5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation fcitx5-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation fcitx5.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fcitx -> deficit fcitx5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fcitx -> Deficit 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/classicui.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/clipboard.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/dbus.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/dbusfrontend.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/emoji.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/ibusfrontend.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/kimpanel.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/notificationitem.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/notifications.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/quickphrase.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/spell.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/testfrontend.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/testim.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/testui.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/unicode.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/wayland.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/waylandim.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/xcb.so fcitx5-libs: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/xim.so Review: Can/Should these files be versioned? They belong to the main fcitx5 package and are used internally by the binaries, correct? Source checksums ---------------- https://download.fcitx-im.org/data/en_dict-20121020.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c44a5d7847925eea9e4d2d04748d442cd28dd9299a0b572ef7d91eac4f5a6ceb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c44a5d7847925eea9e4d2d04748d442cd28dd9299a0b572ef7d91eac4f5a6ceb https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx5/archive/87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 97df64dfb06065a2a7230115945d9b2d4d5286e6235977b429192c88b9d969c4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97df64dfb06065a2a7230115945d9b2d4d5286e6235977b429192c88b9d969c4 Requires -------- fcitx5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/sh /usr/sbin/alternatives dbus-x11 fcitx5-libs(x86-64) imsettings libFcitx5Config.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Core.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libjson-c.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) fcitx5-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) fcitx5(x86-64) libFcitx5Config.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Core.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig(Fcitx5Config) pkgconfig(Fcitx5Core) pkgconfig(Fcitx5Utils) fcitx5-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libFcitx5Config.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Core.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libenchant.so.1()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_222)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_243)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-ewmh.so.2()(64bit) libxcb-icccm.so.4()(64bit) libxcb-imdkit.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-keysyms.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xkb.so.1()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) libxkbfile.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) fcitx5-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fcitx5-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fcitx5: application() application(fcitx5-configtool.desktop) application(fcitx5.desktop) fcitx5 fcitx5(x86-64) fcitx5-devel: cmake(Fcitx5Config) cmake(Fcitx5Core) cmake(Fcitx5Module) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleClipboard) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleDBus) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleEmoji) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleNotificationItem) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleNotifications) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleQuickPhrase) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleSpell) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleTestFrontend) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleTestIM) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleWayland) cmake(Fcitx5ModuleXCB) cmake(Fcitx5Utils) cmake(fcitx5config) cmake(fcitx5core) cmake(fcitx5module) cmake(fcitx5moduleclipboard) cmake(fcitx5moduledbus) cmake(fcitx5moduleemoji) cmake(fcitx5modulenotificationitem) cmake(fcitx5modulenotifications) cmake(fcitx5modulequickphrase) cmake(fcitx5modulespell) cmake(fcitx5moduletestfrontend) cmake(fcitx5moduletestim) cmake(fcitx5modulewayland) cmake(fcitx5modulexcb) cmake(fcitx5utils) fcitx5-devel fcitx5-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(Fcitx5Config) pkgconfig(Fcitx5Core) pkgconfig(Fcitx5Module) pkgconfig(Fcitx5Utils) fcitx5-libs: fcitx5-libs fcitx5-libs(x86-64) libFcitx5Config.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Core.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit) fcitx5-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fcitx5-debuginfo fcitx5-debuginfo(x86-64) fcitx5-debugsource: fcitx5-debugsource fcitx5-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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
