https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 --- Comment #7 from Sergey <sergey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Sébastien Le Roux from comment #6) > (In reply to Sergey from comment #1) > I followed your advises, and setup the copr repo so that I could run the > fedora-review tool. > I will work on the output to improve my RPM, not sure I can do much without > help, > you give a look to one of the review here: > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slook/Atomes/fedora-36- > x86_64/04878251-atomes/fedora-review/review.txt Sébastien, I am quite new to this package review process as well, I just have got the small experience already. I have submitted a few packages for review, but there are no big progress for some reason, unfortunately. I would recommend you to look into the review template for all points marked with exclamation mark `[!]` - these are failed checks. Fortunately, they all are in the `SHOULD` section, so basically your rpm is OK, but these checks are also points to improve. Lets take a look: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. disregard this one: this is a task for an actual reviewer. However, you could check that your package builds in mock. To be precise I first build a package with rpmbuild, until I get no errors. Then under mock, again until I get no errors, and then on copr site: its much faster to build a package locally at least in my case. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ This one is bad: you must use only directories listed here [0] Actually it comes from `BuildRoot:` tag, which should not be used in Fedora's spec files AFAIK, so just remove the line. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. It's worth to enable parallel make so the build system could use all (configured) cores and speed up the process. just add `%{?_smp_mflags}` to the make invocation in the %build phase: make `%{?_smp_mflags}` Also, there is an rpmlint tool that checks rpm's structure. Unfortunately, at copr it is broken for some reason (at least not always works) but you could install this tool and check resulting rpms yourself: pmlint atomes-1.1.5-1.fc38.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 atomes.spec:40: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{name}-%{version} atomes.src: E: unknown-key 268fd208 ============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s and for binary rpm: pmlint atomes-1.1.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================================ rpmlint session starts ========================================= rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 atomes.x86_64: E: unknown-key 268fd208 atomes.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.5 ['1.1.5-1.fc38', '1.1.5-1'] atomes.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libavcodec-free atomes.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libavformat-free atomes.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libavutil-free atomes.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libepoxy atomes.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libgfortran atomes.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libswscale-free atomes.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml2 Generally there should be no W: and E: messages. For the former rpm, you should not use this explicit Provides. For the latter you must not use explicit Requires on libraries: build system will check all actual dependencies of installed binary files and adjust the Requirements of a resulting package. And study the guidelines, should questions arise :) [1] Regards, Sergey. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/ [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines -- 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=2130607 _______________________________________________ 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
