https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897460 Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Why the usage of %{?fedora}, will this spec file be used to build for other distros? While I think it is better to leave only fedora (or epel) suport here. - Add dbus-common as dependency Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. False alarm, /usr/share/xgreeters/lightdm-deepin-greeter.desktop isn't application desktop file - Dist tag is present. using %{?fedora:%dist}, but why? ===== 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]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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 General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "[generated file]". 378 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yan/review/1897460-deepin-session- shell/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/dbus-1 Add dbus-common as dependency? [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. [-]: 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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Latest version is packaged. Intended to use an older version [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. [x]: 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]: 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: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: deepin-session-shell-5.3.0.22-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm deepin-session-shell-debuginfo-5.3.0.22-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm deepin-session-shell-debugsource-5.3.0.22-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm deepin-session-shell-5.3.0.22-1.fc34.src.rpm deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C deepin-session-shell - Deepin desktop-environment - session-shell module deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C deepin-session-shell deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.3.0.39-1 ['5.3.0.22-1.fc34', '5.3.0.22-1'] deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dde-lock deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dde-shutdown deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary deepin-greeter deepin-session-shell.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lightdm-deepin-greeter deepin-session-shell.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C deepin-session-shell - Deepin desktop-environment - session-shell module deepin-session-shell.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C deepin-session-shell 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: deepin-session-shell-debuginfo-5.3.0.22-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name deepin-session-shell-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name deepin-session-shell (none): E: no installed packages by name deepin-session-shell-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dde-session-shell/archive/5.3.0.22/dde-session-shell-5.3.0.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b10d9a6e75cf75c7c4dfc76ffe753ff223a0596cc338f86f05fb565b14b09c87 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b10d9a6e75cf75c7c4dfc76ffe753ff223a0596cc338f86f05fb565b14b09c87 Requires -------- deepin-session-shell (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Svg.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Svg.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5X11Extras.so.5()(64bit) libQt5X11Extras.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Xml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Xml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcursor.so.1()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdframeworkdbus.so.2()(64bit) libdtkcore.so.5()(64bit) libdtkgui.so.5()(64bit) libdtkwidget.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) libgsettings-qt.so.1()(64bit) liblightdm-qt5-3.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) lightdm rtld(GNU_HASH) deepin-session-shell-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): deepin-session-shell-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- deepin-session-shell: deepin-session-shell deepin-session-shell(x86-64) lightdm-deepin-greeter(x86-64) lightdm-greeter deepin-session-shell-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) deepin-session-shell-debuginfo deepin-session-shell-debuginfo(x86-64) deepin-session-shell-debugsource: deepin-session-shell-debugsource deepin-session-shell-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1897460 --no-build Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Python, R, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
