https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017870 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |fedora@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |fedora@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Two issues: 1. Upstream tarball says the license is "GPL2", which I understand as v2-only, whereas the spec says "GPLv2+", i.e. v2-or-later. 2. > %install > %{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{_bindir} Using macro forms of system executables is discouraged. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros Apart from these, looks good. Package approved - please fix before importing. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: 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: The License in the package spec is "GPLv2+", but the README.md file describes the license simply as "GPL2", i.e. v2-only, not v2-or-later. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [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. [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 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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. NOTE: Successful scratch build in koji can be found at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77975237 [-]: %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]: 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 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: hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm hsetroot-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm hsetroot-debugsource-1.0.5-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc36.src.rpm hsetroot.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compton -> Compton, comp ton, comp-ton hsetroot.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picom -> picot, pi com, pi-com hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-documentation hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hsetroot hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hsr-outputs hsetroot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compton -> Compton, comp ton, comp-ton hsetroot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US picom -> picot, pi com, pi-com 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hsetroot-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/himdel/hsetroot/archive/refs/tags/1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a Requires -------- hsetroot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libImlib2.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXinerama.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hsetroot-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hsetroot-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- hsetroot: hsetroot hsetroot(x86-64) hsetroot-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) hsetroot-debuginfo hsetroot-debuginfo(x86-64) hsetroot-debugsource: hsetroot-debugsource hsetroot-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2017870 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Java, Perl, fonts, Haskell, R 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=2017870 _______________________________________________ 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
