https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010999 Link Dupont <link@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@xxxxxxxx | |m) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Link Dupont <link@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Note: This is a review based on gtksourceview5 and gnome-text-editor built from COPR. The SRPMs used to build gtksourceview5 and gnome-text-editor are imported unmodified from their source and built together. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must include a BuildRequires against gcc. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package %files needs to include %dir entries for %{_datadir}/dbus-1/services, %{_datadir}/help/C and %{_datadir}dbus-1 or adjust the existing lines to include the entire directory instead of the file explicitly (i.e. %{_datadir}/dbus-1). - The explicit Requires on glib2, enchant, gtk4 and gtksourceview5 are not necessary. They are automatically required by the dynamic link detection (see "Requires" section below). - 41.1 has been recently released. Consider rebasing to the newest release. - rpmlint caught a couple errors; consider looking at cleaning those up. ===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/dbus-1 [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. [!]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-text-editor-41.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm gnome-text-editor-debuginfo-41.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm gnome-text-editor-debugsource-41.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm gnome-text-editor-41.0-1.fc36.src.rpm gnome-text-editor.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It works hard to keep track of changes and state even if you quit the application. gnome-text-editor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-text-editor gnome-text-editor.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/org.gnome.TextEditor.appdata.xml gnome-text-editor.src: E: description-line-too-long C It works hard to keep track of changes and state even if you quit the application. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gnome-text-editor-debuginfo-41.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/gnome-text-editor/41/gnome-text-editor-41.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64d7c0247d2737334d85fd35d810cc4cbb5386b9f1fa830ea4ee7f9e53170a6b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64d7c0247d2737334d85fd35d810cc4cbb5386b9f1fa830ea4ee7f9e53170a6b Requires -------- gnome-text-editor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): enchant2(x86-64) glib2(x86-64) gtk4(x86-64) gtksourceview5(x86-64) libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libenchant-2.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libgtksourceview-5.so.0()(64bit) libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gnome-text-editor-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-text-editor-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gnome-text-editor: application() application(org.gnome.TextEditor.desktop) gnome-text-editor gnome-text-editor(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.gnome.TextEditor.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/plain) gnome-text-editor-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gnome-text-editor-debuginfo gnome-text-editor-debuginfo(x86-64) gnome-text-editor-debugsource: gnome-text-editor-debugsource gnome-text-editor-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name gnome-text-editor --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010999 _______________________________________________ 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
