[Bug 1980282] Review Request: exaile - music player

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980282

Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> ---
 - You need to set Fedora default build flags:

%build
%set_build_flags
%make_build

 - You could try to keep timestamps by changing install -m to $(INSTALL) -m
 - and also use the auto rpm script "brp-python-bytecompile" to compile all the
pyc files by disabling compile in the Makefile

# Keep timestamps while installing
# Delegate pyc compilation to brp-python-bytecompile
sed -i "s|install -m|\$(INSTALL) -m|;s|all: compile |all: |" Makefile

 - Why no tests? Steps because it's tricky:

Source0:       
https://github.com/exaile/exaile/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
# Fix for bug https://github.com/exaile/exaile/issues/750
Patch0:        
https://github.com/exaile/exaile/commit/d8bbcfd174b658babb6605799d1e9e788b578c84.patch

[…]

BuildRequires:  cairo-gobject
BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils
BuildRequires:  gettext
BuildRequires:  gobject-introspection
BuildRequires:  gstreamer1-plugins-base >= 1.14
BuildRequires:  gstreamer1-plugins-good >= 1.14
BuildRequires:  gtk3 >= 3.22
BuildRequires:  help2man
BuildRequires:  libappstream-glib
BuildRequires:  python3-bsddb3
BuildRequires:  python3-cairo
BuildRequires:  python3-dbus
BuildRequires:  python3-devel
BuildRequires:  python3-gobject-devel >= 3.22
BuildRequires:  python3-gstreamer1 >= 1.14
BuildRequires:  python3-mox3
BuildRequires:  python3-mutagen >= 1.38
BuildRequires:  python3-pytest
BuildRequires:  python3-setproctitle

[…]

%prep
%autosetup -p1

[…]

%check
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/appdata/*.appdata.xml
make test

 - Remove the shebang from these files:

exaile.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/bpm/bpmdetect.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
exaile.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/ipconsole/ipython_view.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3

See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries

 - Patch the old addresses with the new address and send the patch upstream:

exaile.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/lyricsmania/__init__.py
exaile.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/somafm/__init__.py



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review neede


===== 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General
     Public License v1.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v1.0 or later", "BSD
     3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* GNU General
     Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* GNU
     General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or
     later". 407 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/exaile/review-
     exaile/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[!]: 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]: 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
[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 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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[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.
[!]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: exaile-4.1.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          exaile-4.1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
exaile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlists -> play lists,
play-lists, stylists
exaile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fm -> FM, Fm, gm
exaile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrobbling ->
scribbling, scrabbling, scrolling
exaile.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/bpm/bpmdetect.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
exaile.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/ipconsole/ipython_view.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
exaile.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/lyricsmania/__init__.py
exaile.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/exaile/plugins/somafm/__init__.py
exaile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlists -> play lists,
play-lists, stylists
exaile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fm -> FM, Fm, gm
exaile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrobbling -> scribbling,
scrabbling, scrolling
exaile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast, pod
casts, pod-casts
exaile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icecast -> ice cast,
ice-cast, icecap
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 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




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

  Powered by Linux