https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881381 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji build from mentioned side tag: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52041656 > Name: dtkgui > Version: 5.2.2.15 > Release: 1%{?dist} > Summary: Deepin dtkgui > License: LGPLv3+ > URL: https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dtkgui Could you align the Version field like the other fields? > # no-op since Fedora 28 > %ldconfig_scriptlets This can/should be removed per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_linker_configuration_files > %changelog > * Thu Jun 09 2020 uoser <uoser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 5.2.2.1-1 > - Update to 5.2.2.1 The %changelog entry is incorrect. June 9th was a Tuesday. Full review below: 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/ - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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 (v3 or later)". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/dtk5 Review: Which packages provides this directory? dtkcore? [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d, /usr/libexec/dtk5, /etc/dbus-1 Review: As above. Where applicable, either add missing Requires or make your package own the directories. [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, but see earlier comment. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Review: Should deepin-gui-settings have a desktop file? [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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. [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 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.6 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: 2.6 INFO: Mock Version: 2.6 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-debuginfo-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-devel-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-debugsource-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.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/dtkgui/dtkgui-debuginfo-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-devel-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-debugsource-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dtkgui-devel-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dtkgui-debuginfo-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dtkgui-debugsource-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.src.rpm dtkgui.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Deepin -> Dee pin, Dee-pin, Deepen dtkgui.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C dtkgui dtkgui.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.2.2.1-1 ['5.2.2.15-1.fc34', '5.2.2.15-1'] dtkgui.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/com.deepin.dtk.FileDrag.conf dtkgui-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dtkgui.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Deepin -> Dee pin, Dee-pin, Deepen dtkgui.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C dtkgui dtkgui.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Jun 09 2020 uoser <uoser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 5.2.2.1-1 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dtkgui/archive/5.2.2.15/dtkgui-5.2.2.15.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 59d65f9596077b8c5f3bbd603797197dab7b6b6b331ba197e6a060fd5301211d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f6bccc6807a15525ba9bebc308c2f7ead8e4aa11864fd7a67fd66bf954b61de diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- dtkgui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15.1_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5.15.1_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdtkcore.so.5()(64bit) libdtkgui.so.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) qt5-qtbase(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) dtkgui-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) dtkcore-devel(x86-64) dtkgui(x86-64) libdtkgui.so.5()(64bit) pkgconfig(dtkcore) dtkgui-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dtkgui-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dtkgui: dtkgui dtkgui(x86-64) libdtkgui.so.5()(64bit) dtkgui-devel: cmake(DtkGui) cmake(dtkgui) dtkgui-devel dtkgui-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(dtkgui) dtkgui-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) dtkgui-debuginfo dtkgui-debuginfo(x86-64) dtkgui-debugsource: dtkgui-debugsource dtkgui-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
