https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978947 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks mostly fine, apart from the two issues below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Upstream consistently calls this NsCDE, so that should probably win over the Fedora preference for lowercased names; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_case_sensitivity - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1628160 bytes in 117 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 6193 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1978947-nscde/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [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. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: 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. [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]: 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]: %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]: 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 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 Perl: [-]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nscde- data [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: [!]: 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) [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1751040 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: nscde-1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm nscde-data-1.2-1.fc35.noarch.rpm nscde-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm nscde-debugsource-1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm nscde-1.2-1.fc35.src.rpm nscde.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/nscde/lib/XOverrideFontCursor.so nscde.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/nscde/share ../../../usr/share/nscde nscde-data.noarch: W: no-documentation nscde-data.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/nscde/doc ../../../usr/share/doc/nscde 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nscde-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- nscde: /usr/lib64/nscde/lib/XOverrideFontCursor.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/NsCDE/NsCDE/releases/download/1.2/NsCDE-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a26623816de11719eff98f85d519a0b8acff8628975c83289acc023c824b5c4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a26623816de11719eff98f85d519a0b8acff8628975c83289acc023c824b5c4 Requires -------- nscde (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ksh93 /usr/bin/python3 ImageMagick config(nscde) cpp fvwm gettext glibc ksh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) nscde-data python3-psutil python3-qt5 python3-yaml redhat-menus rtld(GNU_HASH) xdotool xdpyinfo xprop xrandr xrdb xrefresh xset xsettingsd nscde-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ksh93 nscde-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nscde-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nscde: bundled(XOverrideFontCursor) bundled(colorpicker) bundled(pclock) config(nscde) nscde nscde(x86-64) nscde-data: nscde-data nscde-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) nscde-debuginfo nscde-debuginfo(x86-64) nscde-debugsource: nscde-debugsource nscde-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1978947-nscde/srpm/nscde.spec 2021-07-03 20:15:53.191442932 -0700 +++ /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1978947-nscde/srpm-unpacked/nscde.spec 2021-07-03 08:34:05.000000000 -0700 @@ -7,6 +7,5 @@ URL: https://github.com/NsCDE/NsCDE Source0: %{url}/releases/download/%{version}/NsCDE-%{version}.tar.gz -# Pass build flags from the environment if available -Patch0: https://github.com/NsCDE/NsCDE/pull/61.patch +Patch0: nscde-cflags.patch # For the installer @@ -66,5 +65,4 @@ Recommends: xscreensaver -# These are an integral part of NsCDE and have been specifically modified Provides: bundled(colorpicker) = 0 Provides: bundled(pclock) = 0.13.1 @@ -172,4 +170,4 @@ %changelog -* Sat Jul 03 2021 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2-1 +* Fri Jul 02 2021 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2-1 - Initial package Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1978947 -L /home/michel/Downloads/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: R, Java, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/michel/Downloads/xrefresh-1.0.6-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm /home/michel/Downloads/xsettingsd-1.0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm -- 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
