https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944117 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= 1) Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/test/1944117-gnome- shell-extension-no-overview/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ => I think everytime we download zip file, a new hash is generated for new zip downloaded. Maybe try to download again and update package. When downloaded again, I also see this difference now -- no-overviewfthx.v4.shell-extension.zip-extract/metadata.json 2021-03-21 20:29:38.000000000 +0530 +++ test3d/metadata.json 2021-03-24 07:12:06.000000000 +0530 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ { "_generated": "Generated by SweetTooth, do not edit", "description": "No overview at startup. For GNOME Shell 40+.", - "name": "No overview", + "name": "No overview at startup", "original-authors": [ "fthx" ], 2) Good to add empty %build section as %build # Nothing to build here 3) rpmlint complains "W: description-shorter-than-summary" Good to add some more words to fix this? 4) Good to report upstream Author to include license text file in upstream zip file. ===== 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. [-]: 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/1944117-gnome-shell-extension-no- overview/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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. [!]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/test/1944117-gnome-shell-extension-no- overview/srpm-unpacked/gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-no-overview-4-1.fc35.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-no-overview-4-1.fc35.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) startup -> start up, start-up, upstart gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: no-documentation gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) startup -> start up, start-up, upstart gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.src: W: no-%build-section gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.src: W: file-size-mismatch no-overviewfthx.v4.shell-extension.zip = 810, https://extensions.gnome.org/extension-data/no-overviewfthx.v4.shell-extension.zip = 821 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) startup -> start up, start-up, upstart gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary gnome-shell-extension-no-overview.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://extensions.gnome.org/extension-data/no-overviewfthx.v4.shell-extension.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cbbcc85e6833142563fd347fa1a94d121c38f68ff625ca6d084668484ca0f0a8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d28b39fe08ae8ed58ebc6b0dad8c2aa91a49dc6a274993f2689e257f329f64c0 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-no-overview (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell-extension-common Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-no-overview: gnome-shell-extension-no-overview Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1944117 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, R, PHP, Python 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
