https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120883 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - Licensecheck shows a BSD-2-Clause file: vorta-0.8.7/src/vorta/qt_single_application.py Please change the License tag to reflect this. - The icons in %{python3_sitelib}/vorta/assets/icons are bundled FontAwesome icons; see the last line of README.md. If you can figure out which version of FontAwesome they belong to, it would be good to unbundle them and depend on one of the fontawesome-fonts or fontawesome5-fonts packages instead. (This will also let you avoid accounting for the license of those icons in the License tag.) - The two hicolor SVG icons are executable, which is why rpmlint issues the script-without-shebang error; see rpmlint output below. - Speaking of rpmlint output, there is no man page for vorta. This is optional, but if you would like to ship a man page, add this: BuildRequires: help2man Then in %install, do something like this: export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/vorta.1 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/vorta And, of course, add the man page to %files. - It is almost possible to run the tests. If you add this: BuildRequires: mesa-dri-drivers BuildRequires: xorg-x11-fonts-Type1 BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-Xvfb And redefine a macro: %global __pytest xvfb-run -d /usr/bin/pytest Then this *almost* works: %check %pytest Except pytest-qt is needed and, alas, we don't have it in Fedora. If we ever get it, the above trick should work. ===== MUST items ===== 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 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 2-Clause License". 212 files have unknown license. [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]: 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 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 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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- vorta.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/com.borgbase.Vorta.svg vorta.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/com.borgbase.Vorta-symbolic.svg vorta.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vorta vorta.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only vorta.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- vorta.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/com.borgbase.Vorta.svg vorta.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/com.borgbase.Vorta-symbolic.svg vorta.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vorta vorta.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/borgbase/vorta/archive/v0.8.7/vorta-0.8.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0957d8ccee6c8d7c6cd0a61a18118e29ff460866adba6bb840a22668261d6aae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0957d8ccee6c8d7c6cd0a61a18118e29ff460866adba6bb840a22668261d6aae Requires -------- vorta (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 borgbackup hicolor-icon-theme python(abi) python3.11dist(appdirs) python3.11dist(paramiko) python3.11dist(peewee) python3.11dist(psutil) python3.11dist(pyqt5) python3.11dist(secretstorage) python3.11dist(setuptools) Provides -------- vorta: application() application(com.borgbase.Vorta.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(com.borgbase.Vorta.appdata.xml) python3.11dist(vorta) python3dist(vorta) vorta Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120883 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Ruby, Haskell, R, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, 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=2120883 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
