https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938522 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Don't use the archive from Debian, grab it from upstream repo: Source0: https://gitlab.gnome.org/crvi/%{name}/-/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 - Please document why the patch are needed. - Not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Globbing the entire %{python3_sitelib}/ is forbidden, please be more specific. %{python3_sitelib}/gnome_activity_journal-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info - In general be more specific in the %files section: %files -f %{name}.lang %license COPYING %doc AUTHORS NEWS %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/org.gnome.ActivityJournal.* %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/status/*.png %{_datadir}/pixmaps/* %{_datadir}/applications/org.gnome.ActivityJournal.desktop %{_datadir}/man/man1/%{name}.1* %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/* %{python3_sitelib}/gnome_activity_journal-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info %{_datadir}/zeitgeist/_zeitgeist/engine/extensions/gnome_activity_journal.* - Valid shorthand for CC BY-SA 3.0 is CC-BY-SA: License: GPLv3+ and CC-BY-SA 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 - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-activity-journal See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike Public License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 78 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-activity- journal/review-gnome-activity-journal/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps(vim-X11, qmmp, redeclipse, xchm, pdfmod, kgraphviewer, qucs, keepassx, libgda-tools, lammps-data, fedora-logos, sxiv, klatexformula, eom, mono-tools, hicolor-icon- theme, wesnoth-data, yokadi, vacuum-im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps(mono-tools, keepassx, libgda- tools, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, pdfmod, eom, vacuum-im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/status(hicolor-icon-theme), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps(qucs, mono-tools, keepassx, libgda-tools, alsa-tools, qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, wesnoth-data, pdfmod), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps(vim-X11, qmmp, redeclipse, xchm, pdfmod, kgraphviewer, qucs, keepassx, libgda- tools, lammps-data, fedora-logos, sxiv, klatexformula, eom, mono- tools, hicolor-icon-theme, wesnoth-data, yokadi, freedroidrpg, vacuum- im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps(vim-X11, qmmp, redeclipse, xchm, alsa-tools, nedit, qucs, keepassx, libgda-tools, lxqt-config, lammps-data, fedora-logos, sxiv, mono-tools, hicolor-icon-theme, yokadi, tuxanci, freedroidrpg, vacuum-im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(dxf2gcode, qucs, eom, wdisplays, keepassx, qtl866, qmmp, massif-visualizer, hicolor-icon- theme, fedora-logos, tuxanci, pdfmod, klatexformula, swappy, freedroidrpg, autokey-common) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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. [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]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-activity-journal-1.0.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm gnome-activity-journal-1.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm gnome-activity-journal.noarch: W: invalid-license CC BY-SA 3.0 gnome-activity-journal.src: W: invalid-license CC BY-SA 3.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
