https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037863 Michael Catanzaro <mcatanza@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? | |needinfo?(gwync@protonmail. | |com) Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mcatanza@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #9 from Michael Catanzaro <mcatanza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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++/ - Latest upstream version is now 3.0.4, would be good to update to that - Please use rpmautospec %autorelease and %autochangelog from the beginning, so we don't have to convert the package later on. - Instead of BuildRequires: glib2-devel >= %{glib2_version}, you should depend on pkgconfig(glib-2.0) and pkgconfig(gio-2.0). - Is the xgettext.patch upstream? Can you add a link to the upstream commit or MR just above it in the spec file? - I think it should Recommends: glib-networking, not Requires. Requires is not quite true because it is perfectly possible to use libsoup without TLS support. That's not what most users want to do, but it's what Recommends is for. - Similarly, there's no need to Requires: glib2 because that is redundant with the automatic shared object dependency. - The package description should end with ", but the SOAP parts were removed long ago." - The # %%{with_docs} comment is trying to be helpful, but there is so little space since the start of the condition, that it really only clutters the spec. I would remove that. - Need to use %global instead of %define throughout Most of these are preexisting issues with the original libsoup.spec. I suppose it's good to re-review spec files every so often. ===== 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: This is a fail, but I've never understood this requirement. It seems to conflict with the packaging guidelines, which require the package to own any directory it creates that might not be owned by a dependency. So I would just ignore this. [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. [x]: 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. Note: see issues at top of review [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 163840 bytes in 3 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Note: see issues at top of review [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: latest version is now 3.0.4 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: see issues at top of review [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: this is a good fail. Please don't add %check. We want to test packages in gating, not during %check. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define glib2_version 2.58.0, %define gtkdoc_flags -Dgtk_doc=true, %define gtkdoc_flags -Dgtk_doc=false [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1515520 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/libsoup/3.0/libsoup-3.0.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5165b04dadae3027e9a2882d868694b4586affd778c194982ae4de2373d2e25e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5165b04dadae3027e9a2882d868694b4586affd778c194982ae4de2373d2e25e Requires -------- libsoup3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glib-networking(x86-64) glib2(x86-64) libbrotlidec.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) libpsl.so.5()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsoup3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libsoup3(x86-64) pkgconfig(gio-2.0) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) pkgconfig(gmodule-2.0) pkgconfig(gobject-2.0) pkgconfig(libbrotlidec) pkgconfig(libnghttp2) pkgconfig(libpsl) pkgconfig(sqlite3) pkgconfig(sysprof-capture-4) pkgconfig(zlib) libsoup3-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsoup3-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsoup3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libsoup3: libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libsoup3 libsoup3(x86-64) libsoup3-devel: libsoup3-devel libsoup3-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsoup-3.0) libsoup3-doc: libsoup3-doc libsoup3-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsoup-3.0.so.0.0.3-3.0.3-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsoup3-debuginfo libsoup3-debuginfo(x86-64) libsoup3-debugsource: libsoup3-debugsource libsoup3-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2037863 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, PHP, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Perl, 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=2037863 _______________________________________________ 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
