https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991208 Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yselkowi@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Since I started this just before it was taken, I'll add this as an informal review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies - Should atril_dbus.py really have a shebang at all? IOW instead of fixing the shebang, should it just be removed? - why is the license "or LGPLv2+"? Nothing LGPL shows up in the license check. - no %license or %doc in %files ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x] Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "MIT License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License". 1487 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yselkowi/tmp/1991208-pluma-plugins/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/es_ES, /usr/share/help/nso, /usr/share/help/mai, /usr/share/help/ks, /usr/share/help/dz, /usr/share/help/ia, /usr/share/help/es_CL, /usr/share/help/frp, /usr/share/help/uz, /usr/share/help/es_CR, /usr/share/help/es_AR, /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/help/zu, /usr/share/help/es_NI, /usr/share/help/kab, /usr/share/help/is, /usr/share/help/es_PA, /usr/share/help/hy, /usr/share/help/si, /usr/share/help/es_DO, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/es_PE, /usr/share/help/es_MX, /usr/share/help/en_CA, /usr/share/help/lb, /usr/share/help/sc, /usr/share/help/an, /usr/share/help/ha, /usr/share/help/be, /usr/share/help/sq, /usr/share/help/ur_PK, /usr/share/help/es_EC, /usr/share/help/kk, /usr/share/help/ky, /usr/share/help/mg, /usr/share/help/es_CO, /usr/share/help/bn_IN, /usr/share/help/es_VE, /usr/share/help/ie, /usr/share/help/mn, /usr/share/help/ms, /usr/share/help/or, /usr/share/help/csb, /usr/share/help/wa, /usr/share/help/jv, /usr/share/help/kn, /usr/share/help/km, /usr/share/help/as, /usr/share/help/br, /usr/share/help/ug, /usr/share/help/la, /usr/share/help/sw, /usr/share/help/cmn, /usr/share/help/mr, /usr/share/help/rw, /usr/share/help/am, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/ne, /usr/share/help/yo, /usr/share/help/zh-Hans, /usr/share/help/ka, /usr/share/help/ml, /usr/share/help/ca@valencia, /usr/share/help/ur, /usr/share/help/fa, /usr/share/help/nds, /usr/share/help/cy, /usr/share/help/gu, /usr/share/help/crh, /usr/share/help/fur, /usr/share/help/ga, /usr/share/help/et, /usr/share/help/xh, /usr/share/help/es_SV, /usr/share/help/es_UY, /usr/share/help/ig, /usr/share/help/es_PR, /usr/share/help/fy [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/eo, /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/ca, /usr/share/help/sq, /usr/share/help/ur_PK, /usr/share/help/es_ES, /usr/share/help/es_EC, /usr/share/help/id, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/nso, /usr/share/help/kk, /usr/share/help/mai, /usr/share/help/ky, /usr/share/help/ks, /usr/share/help/he, /usr/share/help/dz, /usr/share/help/sr, /usr/share/help/hr, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/fi, /usr/share/help/cs, /usr/share/help/sr@latin, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/help/hu, /usr/share/help/mg, /usr/share/help/ia, /usr/share/help/es_CL, /usr/share/help/es_CO, /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/share/help/bn_IN, /usr/share/help/frp, /usr/share/help/ast, /usr/share/help/es_VE, /usr/share/help/ie, /usr/share/help/mn, /usr/share/help/ms, /usr/share/help/or, /usr/share/help/uz, /usr/share/help/csb, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/wa, /usr/share/help/jv, /usr/share/help/de, /usr/share/help/es_CR, /usr/share/help/kn, /usr/share/help/sk, /usr/share/help/it, /usr/share/help/km, /usr/share/help/as, /usr/share/help/es_AR, /usr/share/help/br, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/ug, /usr/share/help/vi, /usr/share/help/lv, /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/help/la, /usr/share/help/sw, /usr/share/help/hi, /usr/share/help/cmn, /usr/share/help/mr, /usr/share/help/zh_TW, /usr/share/help/zu, /usr/share/help/es_NI, /usr/share/help/en_GB, /usr/share/help/sl, /usr/share/help/rw, /usr/share/help/kab, /usr/share/help/nl, /usr/share/help/is, /usr/share/help/es_PA, /usr/share/help/hy, /usr/share/help/am, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/ps, /usr/share/help/ne, /usr/share/help/zh_CN, /usr/share/help/si, /usr/share/help/yo, /usr/share/help/lt, /usr/share/help/zh-Hans, /usr/share/help/ka, /usr/share/help/eu, /usr/share/help/ml, /usr/share/help/ca@valencia, /usr/share/help/ur, /usr/share/help/es_DO, /usr/share/help/bg, /usr/share/help/af, /usr/share/help/te, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/fa, /usr/share/help/nds, /usr/share/help/cy, /usr/share/help/crh, /usr/share/help/gu, /usr/share/help/ku, /usr/share/help/ga, /usr/share/help/fur, /usr/share/help/nb, /usr/share/help/et, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/ro, /usr/share/help/es_PE, /usr/share/help/ru, /usr/share/help/pt, /usr/share/help/xh, /usr/share/help/es_SV, /usr/share/help/oc, /usr/share/help/bs, /usr/share/help/es_UY, /usr/share/help/ig, /usr/share/help/th, /usr/share/help/es_PR, /usr/share/help/pa, /usr/share/help/es_MX, /usr/share/help/en_CA, /usr/share/help/lb, /usr/share/help/en_AU, /usr/share/help/sc, /usr/share/help/fy, /usr/share/help/an, /usr/share/help/ja, /usr/share/help/mk, /usr/share/help/gl, /usr/share/help/ko, /usr/share/help/ha, /usr/share/help/be, /usr/share/help/zh_HK, /usr/share/help/tr [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [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 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. Note: Multiple Release: tags found [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]: 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 Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://pub.mate- desktop.org/releases/1.26/pluma-plugins-1.26.0.tar.xz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). QUESTION: should atril_dbus.py really have a shebang at all? This causes a Requires: /usr/bin/python3 which seems incorrect. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3717120 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pluma-plugins-1.26.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm pluma-plugins-debuginfo-1.26.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm pluma-plugins-debugsource-1.26.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm pluma-plugins-1.26.0-1.fc35.src.rpm pluma-plugins.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python3 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pluma-plugins-debuginfo-1.26.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- pluma-plugins: /usr/lib64/pluma/plugins/libbookmarks.so pluma-plugins: /usr/lib64/pluma/plugins/libwordcompletion.so Requires -------- pluma-plugins (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgirepository-1.0.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-4.so.0()(64bit) libharfbuzz.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-gtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-loader-python3 pluma rtld(GNU_HASH) pluma-plugins-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pluma-plugins-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pluma-plugins: libbookmarks.so()(64bit) libwordcompletion.so()(64bit) metainfo() metainfo(pluma-bookmarks.metainfo.xml) metainfo(pluma-codecomment.metainfo.xml) metainfo(pluma-synctex.metainfo.xml) metainfo(pluma-terminal.metainfo.xml) pluma-plugins pluma-plugins(x86-64) pluma-plugins-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pluma-plugins-debuginfo pluma-plugins-debuginfo(x86-64) pluma-plugins-debugsource: pluma-plugins-debugsource pluma-plugins-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1991208 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ 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
