https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964027 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mhayden@xxxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Please remove the %post/%postun scriptlets. On Fedora, only packages that install linker configuration files should call /sbin/ldconfig in %post/%postun (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_linker_configuration_files). Even EPEL8 should not require manually calling /sbin/ldconfig, or using the %ldconfig_scriptlets macro (which is now obsolete in Fedora). In general, then, something like %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig could become %if 0%{?epel} == 7 %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig %endif or maybe # Needed only for EPEL7 %ldconfig_scriptlets or be removed entirely if not targeting EPEL7. However, this package installs only a command-line executable, not a shared library, so you should remove these scriptlets entirely even if you were targeting EPEL7. - If you set %archivename, it should be the source archive name without extensions. Instead of %global archivename %{name}-%{tag}.tar.gz use %global archivename %{name}-%{tag} so that the source archive is not called wtype-v0.3.tar.gz.tar.gz. - The cmake BR is spurious and should be removed. - While this meson.build does try to use git: * it is optional * the version-setting mechanism using git only works in a checked-out git repository, not a source archive, so it produces a garbage value here * nothing uses the VERSION preprocessor macro it sets anyway * if git were needed, git-core would suffice in this instance, with fewer heavyweight recursive dependencies So you should just remove the git BR as well. - Since meson finds the dependencies using pkgconfig, it would be better to write BuildRequires: libxkbcommon-devel BuildRequires: wayland-devel as BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wayland-client) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wayland-cursor) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xkbcommon) See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1964027-wtype/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 (except as noted) [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 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]: 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. Executable runs in a mock chroot, but I did not try it in a Wayland session. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. Scriptlets are unnecessary and should be removed. [-]: 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. Upstream does not provide tests. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: wtype-0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm wtype-debuginfo-0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm wtype-debugsource-0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm wtype-0.3-1.fc35.src.rpm wtype.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xdotool -> toolbox wtype.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdotool type for Wayland wtype.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox wtype.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xdotool -> toolbox wtype.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdotool type for Wayland wtype.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wtype-debuginfo-0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- wtype.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xdotool -> toolbox wtype.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdotool type for Wayland wtype.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/atx/wtype/archive/v0.3/wtype-v0.3.tar.gz.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35615e61e57576a240d10308f9101ceb2ec7b3554fac60119b1416b84c1694b2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35615e61e57576a240d10308f9101ceb2ec7b3554fac60119b1416b84c1694b2 Requires -------- wtype (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wtype-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wtype-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wtype: wtype wtype(x86-64) wtype-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wtype-debuginfo wtype-debuginfo(x86-64) wtype-debugsource: wtype-debugsource wtype-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1964027 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Python, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, Perl, Ruby 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
