https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2004833 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(amigadave@amigada | |ve.com) --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This is a high-quality package with no major problems. Still, I found a handful of things to look at. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. Add BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils and then, in %check (or in %install after %meson_install, if you prefer), add: desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in xdg-desktop-portal-gnome See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units I’m not sure what the above diagnostic from fedora-review wants me to do or say. Consulting the linked guidelines, it appears that you’re using these macros correctly. - The fedora-review tool reports the directories /usr/share/dbus-1 and /usr/share/dbus-1/services need an owner. I am not sure this claim is quite right. You have Requires: dbus and dbus (which is a metapackage) depends on dbus-broker, which depends on dbus-common, which owns these directories (and is a lightweight package that only provides configuration and setup files and directory structures). Still, especially given the following comment in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dbus/blob/rawhide/f/dbus.spec#_352: # The 'dbus' package is only retained for compatibility purposes. It will # eventually be removed and then replaced by 'Provides: dbus' in the # dbus-daemon package. It will then exclusively be used for other packages to # describe their dependency on a system and user bus. It does not pull in any # particular dbus *implementation*, nor any libraries. These should be pulled # in, if required, via explicit dependencies. it seems like adding a direct dependency Requires: dbus-common for these directories would be wise. - The Source0 URL is broken. The correct URL is https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/41/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-41.alpha.tar.xz but Source0: https://download.gnome.org/sources/%{name}/%{name}-%{tarball_version}.tar.xz expands to https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-41.alpha.tar.xz Fix it with something like %global verdir %(echo '%{version}' | cut -d '~' -f 1) Source0: https://download.gnome.org/sources/%{name}/%{verdir}/%{name}-%{tarball_version}.tar.xz - You do not need %{?systemd_requires} for the systemd scriptlets. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_dependencies_on_the_systemd_package. Additionally, BuildRequires: systemd can be replaced with BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets. ===== 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]: 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2004833-xdg-desktop- portal-gnome/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/dbus-1 The dbus→dbus-broker→dbus-common chain should provide this ownership indirectly, but I suggest a direct dependency on dbus-common anyway. See Issues. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/xdg- desktop-portal-gnome-41.alpha.tar.xz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments Source URL needs to be corrected. [-]: 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. Upstream provides no tests. [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]: 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: xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-41~alpha-1.fc36.src.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backend -> Backed, Back end, Back-end xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SessionManager -> Session Manager, Session-manager, Nonaggression xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backend -> Backed, Back end, Back-end xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SessionManager -> Session Manager, Session-manager, Nonaggression xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-41.alpha.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- xdg-desktop-portal-gnome (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh dbus libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd xdg-desktop-portal xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xdg-desktop-portal-gnome: application() application(xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.desktop) xdg-desktop-portal-gnome xdg-desktop-portal-gnome(x86-64) xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo(x86-64) xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource: xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2004833 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, R, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, fonts, Java 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2004833 _______________________________________________ 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
