https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923830 --- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Almost there, a little more work needed :) 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 ^ Please use one form, for consistency. - 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 ^ Please mark the license file using %license. - 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, since this is a re-review - Directory ownership issues, please see below. - Please prefer this form for the Source etc: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags - please do not mix tabs and space: best to only use one form consistently - if it's a noarch package, you do not need to disable debuginfo. Please remove the line - the appdata files now go to the metainfodir etc. Please see this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ - please correct the older changelog entries - your spec/srpm don't match: the srpm version is 0.6.0-61? It should be 0.6.0-1? ===== 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", "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-diffuse/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/it, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/ru, /usr/share/omf/diffuse, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/C, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/cs ^ Please check these directories for ownership. Nothing seems to own /usr/share/gnome/help, so this package should own it. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership Since the help files use gnome-help [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/ru, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/C, /usr/share/gnome/help, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/cs, /usr/share/omf/diffuse, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/it ^ See point above. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. ^ Looks fine. I'd add a blank like after each changelog entry for readability. [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). ^ You can use %{name} in the files section etc. too [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]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ^ Some work needed :) [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]: 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. ^ Not tested the functioning 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ^ No tests are defined in the package [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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: diffuse-0.6.0-61.fc35.noarch.rpm diffuse-0.6.0-61.fc35.src.rpm diffuse.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0 ['0.6.0-61.fc35', '0.6.0-61'] ^ Please ensure that the srpm is generated from the correct version of this spec diffuse.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/diffuse/COPYING ^ Please report this upstream diffuse.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mergetool diffuse.src:19: W: unversioned-explicit-provides difftool diffuse.src:80: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 80, tab: line 1) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- diffuse.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0 ['0.6.0-61.fc35', '0.6.0-61'] diffuse.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/diffuse/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. ^ Please report this 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 Provides -------- diffuse: application() application(diffuse.desktop) config(diffuse) difftool diffuse mergetool metainfo() metainfo(diffuse.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/plain) mimehandler(text/x-chdr) mimehandler(text/x-csrc) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1923830-diffuse/srpm/diffuse.spec 2021-04-21 19:45:07.621795900 +0100 +++ /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1923830-diffuse/srpm-unpacked/diffuse.spec 2021-02-13 01:54:02.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ Name: diffuse Version: 0.6.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 61%{?dist} Summary: Graphical tool for merging and comparing text files License: GPLv2+ @@ -115,10 +115,10 @@ </p> <p> - The next version will not take 6 years, I promise you! + The next version will not take 6 years, I promise you! 😄 </p> <p>Added:</p> <ul> <li>Added Pedro Albuquerque's Portuguese translation</li> - <li>Added Åke Engelbrektson's Swedish translation</li> + <li>Added Ã…ke Engelbrektson's Swedish translation</li> <li>Added Guillaume Hoffmann's Darcs support improvements</li> <li>Added Akom Chotiphantawanon's Thai translation</li> @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ %changelog -* Fri Feb 12 2021 bongochong <bongochong@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.0-1 +* Fri Feb 12 2021 bongochong <bongochong> Version 0.6.0 - Working on bringing packaging of this application up to par for inclusion in default repos -* Mon Dec 7 2020 bongochong <bongochong@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.0 +* Mon Dec 7 2020 bongochong <bongochong> Version 0.6.0 - Updated to 0.6.0. Mainly under the hood changes in this release, so nothing really visible to the users in this version. That said, I figured it was a long time since the last release (4 months ago) and, as promised, I want Diffuse development to be a bit more active and iterative. Replace old install.py with the more standard Meson. Remove u string prefixes since Python 3 is in UTF-8 by default. Replaced some interpolation operators (%) for the f string prefix. Use the window scale factor for the icons generation -* Tue Nov 3 2020 bongochong <bongochong@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.5.9 +* Tue Nov 3 2020 bongochong <bongochong> Version 0.5.9 - Fedora Packaging of Python 3 Fork and Initial upload to COPR of said fork \ No newline at end of file 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: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, fonts, R, Ocaml, Python, C/C++, PHP, Java 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
