https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939978 --- Comment #7 from Ibiam <ibiamchihurumnaya@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #6) > -Please use the Fedora default build flags: > > %build > CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-${RPM_LD_FLAGS}}" \ > python3 ./setup.py build > > > %install > CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-${RPM_LD_FLAGS}}" \ > python3 ./setup.py install --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix} Seems the distro flags are needed when compiling C/C++ code and the package doesnt' contain any. > > - Why do you remove the desktop file? > > rm %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/share/applications/*.desktop || true The desktop file is removed because the can create icons for running sugar activities outside the sugar desktop on other desktops and sugar activities were meant to be run from the sugar desktop. > > - You must include the COPYING.MIT: > > %license COPYING COPYING.MIT > > - This is not correct: > > sed -i 's/env python/python3/' *.py cairoplot/*.py > > If a py file already contains 'env python3', the result will be 'env > python33' > > In any case the shebangs should be removed in prep: > > usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/setup.py > 1:#!/usr/bin/python33 > > usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/helpbutton.py > 1:#!/usr/bin/python3 > > usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/gencards.py > 1:#!/usr/bin/python3 > > usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/dimensions.py > 1:#!/usr/bin/python3 > > usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/cairoplot/series.py > 1:#!/usr/bin/python3 > > usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/cairoplot/setup.py > 1:#!/usr/bin/python3 > > usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/cairoplot/cairoplot.py > 1:#!/usr/bin/python3 > > See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries > > for lib in $(find . -name "*.py" -type f); do > sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' $lib > $lib.new && > touch -r $lib $lib.new && > mv $lib.new $lib > done Thanks for that, fixed. > > > - Don't mix tabs and spaces > > - Fix the obsolete FSF address and send the patch upstream: > > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/cairoplot/cairoplot.py > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/cairoplot/series.py > It's a license and the version used still contains same address hence I can't just change it. > - Don't fix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Choose only one. Fixed, thanks. > > > > 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/ > - 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.MIT is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text > > > ===== 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", "Expat License", "GNU General Public > License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version > 2.1", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF > postal address (Temple Place)]". 200 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/sugar- > dimensions/review-sugar-dimensions/licensecheck.txt > [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/gug/LC_MESSAGES, > /usr/share/locale/gug > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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 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 > > Python: > [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. > [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on > packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly > versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST > use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. > [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== 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. > [-]: 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: > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: Mock build failed > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_use_rpmlint > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: sugar-dimensions-60-1.fc35.noarch.rpm > sugar-dimensions-60-1.fc35.src.rpm > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/cairoplot/cairoplot.py > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/cairoplot/series.py > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/gencards.py 644 > /usr/bin/python3 > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Dimensions.activity/helpbutton.py 644 > /usr/bin/python3 > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.sugarlabs.VisualMatchActivity.mo > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/nah/LC_MESSAGES/org.sugarlabs.VisualMatchActivity.mo > sugar-dimensions.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/son/LC_MESSAGES/org.sugarlabs.VisualMatchActivity.mo > sugar-dimensions.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, > tab: line 13) > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 1 warnings. Fixed, thanks. -- 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
