https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958193 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Do not mix spaces and tabs for indentation (line 11 and 12) - Wrap the description to stay below 80 characters per line: %description Clipmenu is a simple clipboard manager using dmenu (or rofi with CM_LAUNCHER=rofi) and xsel. - /usr/lib/systemd/user -> %{_userunitdir} - Use systemd scriptlets, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units %post systemctl daemon-reload -> BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros […] %post %systemd_user_post clipmenud.service %preun %systemd_user_preun clipmenud.service - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and version-release number: %changelog * Thu May 06 2021 kvlad <v.a.kim1988@xxxxxxxxx> - 6.2.0-1 - First clipmenu package - Use a more explicit name for your archive: Source0: https://github.com/cdown/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Use setup - q to make the setup quiet: %prep %setup -q Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in clipmenu See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units ===== 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", "*No copyright* the Unlicense". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/clipmenu/review-clipmenu/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: 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: [x]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: clipmenu-6.2.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm clipmenu-6.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm clipmenu.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rofi -> profit clipmenu.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Clipmenu is a simple clipboard manager using dmenu (or rofi with CM_LAUNCHER=rofi) and xsel. clipmenu.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog vlad ['6.2.0-1.fc35', '6.2.0-1'] clipmenu.x86_64: E: no-binary clipmenu.x86_64: W: no-documentation clipmenu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipctl clipmenu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipdel clipmenu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipfsck clipmenu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipmenu clipmenu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipmenud clipmenu.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen clipmenu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen clipmenu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rofi -> profit clipmenu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xsel -> sell clipmenu.src: E: description-line-too-long C Clipmenu is a simple clipboard manager using dmenu (or rofi with CM_LAUNCHER=rofi) and xsel. clipmenu.src:23: W: setup-not-quiet clipmenu.src: W: no-%build-section clipmenu.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 15 warnings. -- 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
