https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884608 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #17 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> --- As discussed by email I'm taking over this review from François. I've done a full review, below is the list of all checks run (generated with the help of the fedora-review tool) Note there are a few (trivial) [!] fail items in here, I've put a summary of those with some extra explanation at the end of this comment as a small TODO/FIXME list. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [-]: 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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license (GPLv2+) 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: 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 81920 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [-]: 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 [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dosbox-staging-0.75.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm dosbox-staging-debuginfo-0.75.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm dosbox-staging-debugsource-0.75.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm dosbox-staging-0.75.2-2.fc34.src.rpm dosbox-staging.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chipsets -> chip sets, chip-sets, chips dosbox-staging.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shaders -> shades, sharers, shavers dosbox-staging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chipsets -> chip sets, chip-sets, chips dosbox-staging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shaders -> shades, sharers, shavers TODO / FIXME ============ [!]: Package consistently uses macros You use %{__make} in %build and just plain "make" in %install. Please be consistent. Note you can also choose to use: "%{make_build}" instead of "%{__make} %{_smp_mflags}" and "%{make_install}" instead of "%{__make} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" Also there is no need to pass " -n %{name}-%{version}" to "%autosetup" as that is the default, so please drop this. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. ATM the package is using a Conflicts tag, but we generally do not allow Conflicts in Fedora. As discussed by email the plan is for this to replace the old dosbox package. Since it is a new upstream it is not really a rename but the way to handle this is the same, please replace the: Conflicts: dosbox line in the spec-file with: Provides: dosbox = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: dosbox = %{version}-%{release} This will switch users to the new dosbox-staging automatically during update installation. [!]: Latest version is packaged. 0.76.0 is available, which I'm sure you are aware of, please upgrade the package to 0.76.0 (or newer) [!] Missing BuildRequires: make Starting with Fedora 34 make is no longer part of the default package set inside the build-root, please add a BuildRequires: make [!] Missing BuildRequires: fluidsynth-devel Please add a BuildRequires: fluidsynth-devel so that the package gets build with fluidsynth support [?] Missing BuildRequires: zstd The upstream docs mention that zstd should be present during the build but it is missing in the BuildRequires. Please explain why this is not necessary, or add the BuildRquires (maybe fix the upstreamd docs?) Patryk, if you can post a new version with these items resolved then I can approve the package and sponsor you to become a packager. To sponsor you I also need to know your Fedora Account System (FAS) username. -- 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
