https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868854 --- Comment #4 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #3) > 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 > > Above are fixed > 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
