https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011964 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(denis@xxxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please add: BuildRequires: gcc-c++ BuildRequires: make rather than relying on the indirect dependencies via qt5-*-devel. - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. Validation of the upstream desktop file shows: spdrs60.redhat.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated spdrs60.redhat.desktop: warning: boolean key "Terminal" in group "Desktop Entry" has value "0", which is deprecated: boolean values should be "false" or "true" spdrs60.redhat.desktop: warning: value "Application;Game;X-Red-Hat-Extra;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application" You must validate the desktop file at build time, and you should fix the warnings. To accomplish both, add BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils and change install -Dpm 0644 spdrs60.redhat.desktop %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/spdrs60.desktop to cp -p spdrs60.redhat.desktop spdrs60.desktop desktop-file-install \ --remove-key='Encoding' \ --set-key='Terminal=false' \ --remove-category='Application' \ --delete-original \ --dir='%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications' \ spdrs60.desktop https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage - 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. Note: License file sect-copyright.html is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text I don’t think this HTML documentation file with the copyright/license statement needs to be considered a license file. I think no change is required here. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1228800 bytes in 266 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation Something like: %package doc Summary: Documentation for %{name} BuildArch: noarch %description doc %{summary}. and then later: %files doc %license COPYING # Put documenation file directives here instead of in the base package At least the HTML documentation should go in the -doc subpackage. You can move the small text documentation files (AUTHORS, README, …) or not, as you prefer. - Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1587200 bytes in /usr/share This can be done similarly to the -doc subpackage suggestion above. Make sure it includes %license COPYING since it could potentially be installed by itself. Then, add to the base package: Requires: %{name}-data = %{version}-%{release} Then, you can drop %license COPYING from the base package %files section since the -data subpackage provides it. - The copyright statements in the source file headers contain the “or any later version” language, so the License field should be changed from “GPLv2” to “GPLv2+”. - While not absolutely required by the guidelines, it would be cleaner to use %make_build in place of make %{?_smp_mflags} and %make_install in place of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} - While an AppData XML file is always desired for a GUI application (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/), I find it is difficult to do this purely downstream due to the requirement for extremely permissively licensed (CC0 or similar) description text and similarly-licensed, hosted screenshot(s). I have successfully worked with some upstreams to add this in the past, and it’s nice when it’s possible because your package will appear in the GNOME Software Center and similar. However, it’s certainly not required. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "MIT License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]". 426 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2011964-spdrs60/licensecheck.txt The copyright statements in the source file headers contain the “or any later version” language, so the License field should be changed from “GPLv2” to “GPLv2+”. Other licenses belong to build-system files that are not packaged, and are correctly omitted from the License field. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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 (except as noted) [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]: 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: [-]: 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. Upstream supports German (de) locale, but summaries and descriptions are not taken from upstream, so there are no “drop-in” localized versions. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream does not offer 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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) The difference is only in the changelog date, but please ensure these match. [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1587200 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: spdrs60-0.6.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm spdrs60-debuginfo-0.6.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm spdrs60-debugsource-0.6.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm spdrs60-0.6.4-1.fc36.src.rpm spdrs60.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US erddcd -> verdict spdrs60.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srcpd -> cpd spdrs60.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US erddcd -> verdict spdrs60.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srcpd -> cpd 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: spdrs60-debuginfo-0.6.4-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/spdrs60/files/spdrs60/0.6.4/spdrs60-0.6.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a88251553a4b5cef5b473b1b663361dd0bb2ceef67e0bbec865f306d5c2593f2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a88251553a4b5cef5b473b1b663361dd0bb2ceef67e0bbec865f306d5c2593f2 Requires -------- spdrs60 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) spdrs60-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): spdrs60-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- spdrs60: application() application(spdrs60.desktop) spdrs60 spdrs60(x86-64) spdrs60-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) spdrs60-debuginfo spdrs60-debuginfo(x86-64) spdrs60-debugsource: spdrs60-debugsource spdrs60-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2011964-spdrs60/srpm/spdrs60.spec 2021-10-16 23:08:46.074261709 -0400 +++ /home/reviewer/2011964-spdrs60/srpm-unpacked/spdrs60.spec 2020-07-27 17:57:12.000000000 -0400 @@ -53,4 +53,4 @@ %changelog -* Wed Oct 06 2021 Denis Fateyev <denis@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6.4-1 +* Fri Jul 24 2020 Denis Fateyev <denis@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6.4-1 - Initial Fedora RPM release Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2011964 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Perl, Java, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity 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=2011964 _______________________________________________ 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
