https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998270 Iago Rubio <iago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |iago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Iago Rubio <iago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Amanda, I am not a packager so I can't approve or sponsor you. Just doing the review. Please re-check each point I make and if necesary ask for another review on devel. rpmlint - no complains builds in mock builds in Copr Manual Review: - Package does not contain kernel modules. - Package contains no static executables. - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ! License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed Debuginfo does not install license files, nor require the main package that does install license. - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Only defines gtk_doc=true and install_test=true. - Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception - Changelog in prescribed format - Sources contain only permissible code or content - Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application - not a GUI application. - Development files must be in a -devel package - The spec file handles locales properly. - Package consistently uses macros - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines (1) Package does not generate any conflict. - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. - If the package is a rename of another package ... - is not a rename. ? Requires correct, justified where necessary. vapigen required and not used on any build section. Is this required implicitly? - spec file is legible and written in American English - Package contains systemd file(s) if in need - no systemd file needed. - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. - Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. - Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (1) Current Gnome and Rawhide's Gnome uses GTK3 yet you are providing the GTK4 version. I think the name of the package should reflect it's the GTK4 version, and/or ship the GTK3 version to be used in current Gnome. I haven't found on guidelines how to face this issue, but it may conflict with a GTK3 build. In the SHOULD side: no tests checked, no %check section. There is a package maintaner for gtksourceview, that currently maintains the gtksourceview4 package. I am sure you may contact him and ask him for the heads-up/review on this package. That may help to get a good review. He is @pwalter . I guess you took his .spec as an starting point as they are practically identical, but some meson libs and the initial changelog. As I said, take this review with a pinch of salt and wait for an oficial review, unless you check out my findings on the Guidelines and agree with them. Hope this helps. -- 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
