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
