[Bug 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190

vladimir <v.a.kim1988@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(package-review@li
                   |                            |sts.fedoraproject.org)



--- Comment #2 from vladimir <v.a.kim1988@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
>  - The description should be wrapped to stay below 80 characters per line:
> 
> %description
> clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits
> until a new selection is available and then exits.
> 
>  - make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build
> 
>  - This is not ok:
> 
> %global debug_package %{nil}
> 
> You should find out why a debug package is not generated. Here you should
> set %set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:
> 
> %build
> %set_build_flags
> %make_build
> 
>  - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and version-release
> number:
> 
> %changelog
> * Thu May 06 2021 kvlad <v.a.kim1988@xxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.2-1
> - First clipnotify package
> 
>  - Use a more explicit name for your archive:
> 
> Source0:       
> https://github.com/cdown/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> 
> ===== 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]: 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: "*No copyright* the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
>      have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/bob/packaging/review/clipnotify/review-
>      clipnotify/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.
> [!]: 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:
> [-]: 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]: 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: clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>           clipnotify-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>           clipnotify-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>           clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
> clipnotify.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libXfixes
> clipnotify.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C clipnotify is a simple
> program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection
> is available and then exits.
> clipnotify.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog vlad ['1.0.2-1.fc35',
> '1.0.2-1']
> clipnotify.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> clipnotify.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipnotify
> clipnotify.src: E: description-line-too-long C clipnotify is a simple
> program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection
> is available and then exits.
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.

Hi! Thank you! Almost done, but the error has occured with:
%build
#%set_build_flags
%make_build


make -O -j4 hangs, while building the package.
make -O -j1 works fine, when run it manual. What is the correct way to do it in
spec-file?


-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux