https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868854 --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Mid-submission EDIT: Thanks for the Koji build! I was about to post my COPR build. I'll start using Koji for this as well, since it doesn't seem to have the same issues as COPR. > BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules > BuildRequires: gcc-c++, lua-devel > BuildRequires: ninja-build, fcitx5-devel > BuildRequires: gettext-devel > Requires: fcitx5-data Could you split these into individual lines for better readability? Also, it's probably a good idea to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" format for the dependencies inside fcitx5-devel if possible. In the fcitx5-qt package you used something like this: > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Fcitx5Utils) And in fcitx5-rime something like this: > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Fcitx5Core) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Fcitx5Module) > %files -f %{name}.lang > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt > %doc README.md > %{_libdir}/fcitx5/luaaddonloader.so > %{_datadir}/fcitx5/* > > %files devel > %{_includedir}/Fcitx5/* > %{_libdir}/cmake/* Mid-submission EDIT: I saw you fixed the wildcards in the -devel subpackage, but I think the one used in the main package could also be improved: %{_datadir}/fcitx5/* changed to: %{_datadir}/fcitx5/addon/imeapi.conf # the %{_datadir}/fcitx5/addon dir is owned by another fcitx5 package %{_datadir}/fcitx5/addon/luaaddonloader.conf %{_datadir}/fcitx5/lua Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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: The unversioned SO file luaaddonloader.so is for internal use only. Ignore error. [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]: 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: Tested in COPR. [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". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-lua/fcitx5-lua/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/Fcitx5, /usr/share/fcitx5, /usr/lib64/fcitx5 Review: Bogus, fcitx5-data and fcitx5-devel are listed as requirements. /usr/lib64/fcitx5 is owned by fcitx5-libs and picked up automatically via autodep. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fcitx5, /usr/lib64/fcitx5, /usr/include/Fcitx5 Review: same as above. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Review: Yes, even though rpmlint complains. [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 [?]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Review: Yes, but see the earlier pkgconfig(foo) comments. [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]: 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. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Review: see earlier comments about listings in %files sections. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Review: builds in COPR. [-]: 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). Review: Yes, but see comments about using pkgconfig(foo). [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. 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-lua/fcitx5-lua-debugsource-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-lua/fcitx5-lua-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-lua/fcitx5-lua-devel-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-lua/fcitx5-lua-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.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-lua/fcitx5-lua-debugsource-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-lua/fcitx5-lua-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-lua/fcitx5-lua-devel-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-lua/fcitx5-lua-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: fcitx5-lua-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-lua-devel-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-lua-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-lua-debugsource-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.x86_64.rpm fcitx5-lua-0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32.src.rpm fcitx5-lua.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fcitx -> deficit fcitx5-lua.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fcitx -> deficit fcitx5-lua.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.2.20200811gitd705404 ['0-0.2.20200812gitd705404.fc32', '0-0.2.20200812gitd705404'] fcitx5-lua-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary fcitx5-lua-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fcitx5-lua-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation fcitx5-lua.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fcitx -> deficit fcitx5-lua.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fcitx -> deficit 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- fcitx5-lua: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/luaaddonloader.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx5-lua/archive/d705404964d4842998be17cd53dd29d2f78a4144/fcitx5-lua-d705404964d4842998be17cd53dd29d2f78a4144.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e5a7fa07e263eeedbf108907b124b4ca0a90ab3e4b3de121dba09a869e88d752 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e5a7fa07e263eeedbf108907b124b4ca0a90ab3e4b3de121dba09a869e88d752 Requires -------- fcitx5-lua (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fcitx5-data libFcitx5Config.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Core.so.6()(64bit) libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) fcitx5-lua-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) fcitx5-devel fcitx5-lua(x86-64) fcitx5-lua-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fcitx5-lua-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fcitx5-lua: fcitx5-lua fcitx5-lua(x86-64) fcitx5-lua-devel: cmake(Fcitx5ModuleLuaAddonLoader) cmake(fcitx5moduleluaaddonloader) fcitx5-lua-devel fcitx5-lua-devel(x86-64) fcitx5-lua-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fcitx5-lua-debuginfo fcitx5-lua-debuginfo(x86-64) fcitx5-lua-debugsource: fcitx5-lua-debugsource fcitx5-lua-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
