https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923830 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks pretty good. Here is a first round of reviews. A few blockers here that need fixing: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/diffuse See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ^ This is OK. - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: diffuse3-meson.spec should be diffuse.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming - Why is the release 60? It can start with 1 - For the SourceURL, please refer to this page: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_hosting_services - You do not need to BR: python3, python3-devel will pull it in. - You do not need to BR: /usr/bin/python either. - You do not need to Require: python3 either - Are the explicit provides necessary? - If this is a pure python package, it should be use: BuildArch: noarch, and then you do not need to explicitly disable the debug package. If not, it must generate debuginfo. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/ - We should use the metainfo file for appdata now: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ - Please also remember to validate the appdata file in the check section as listed there - the %files tag is used twice, you can remove the first one. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 101 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1923830-diffuse3-meson/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/diffuse ^ Perhaps the file list should have %{_datadir}/%{name} (remove the /*)? [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnome/help, /usr/share/diffuse ^ I think you need to own the /usr/share/gnome/help directory (while you do not need to Require a package for it). Take a look here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ^ Is nothing being built in the build step? You can remove %meson_build if that's the case. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ^ Please correct the changelog. It should be version-release at the end, and the entries are generally short points. You can give more verbose explanations in the git commit messages when committing to Fedora SCM https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ^ Please use %{buildroot} consistently (and not mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT too). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ^ Please see my comment above. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ^ Please see my comment on the extra Requires. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ^ Please see my comment above. [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 40960 bytes in 4 files. ^ Should the help bits be moved to a -doc sub-package? [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ^ A few things to work on here. [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. ^ Not tested this out. [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. ^ Not tested this out, we'll do scratch builds on koji later to confirm. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ^ There are no tests from the looks of it. [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1923830-diffuse3-meson/srpm-unpacked/diffuse3-meson.spec See: (this test has no URL) [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1003520 bytes in /usr/share ^ It is possible to split the package into sub-packages here, but let's look at that after the first round of tweaks. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: diffuse-0.6.0-60.fc34.x86_64.rpm diffuse-0.6.0-60.fc34.src.rpm diffuse.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0 ['0.6.0-60.fc34', '0.6.0-60'] diffuse.x86_64: E: no-binary diffuse.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/diffuse/COPYING diffuse.src: E: invalid-spec-name diffuse.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mergetool diffuse.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides difftool diffuse.src:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 8) diffuse.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 90: multiple %files for package 'diffuse' 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings. ^ These are covered above. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- diffuse.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0 ['0.6.0-60.fc34', '0.6.0-60'] ^ Please correct. diffuse.x86_64: E: no-binary ^ I expect this is because the package should be a noarch package. diffuse.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/diffuse/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. ^ Please report the incorrect fsf address to upstream Source checksums ---------------- https://codeload.github.com/MightyCreak/diffuse/tar.gz/v0.6.0 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 806ad7e4efd6408078d4667d763bf8efcd5a01bd152b82f38450539e3e0ec74d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 806ad7e4efd6408078d4667d763bf8efcd5a01bd152b82f38450539e3e0ec74d Requires -------- diffuse (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(diffuse) hicolor-icon-theme python3 Provides -------- diffuse: application() application(diffuse.desktop) config(diffuse) difftool diffuse diffuse(x86-64) mergetool metainfo() metainfo(diffuse.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/plain) mimehandler(text/x-chdr) mimehandler(text/x-csrc) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1923830 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, R, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, SugarActivity 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
