https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 --- Comment #14 from Sébastien Le Roux <sebastien.leroux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #11) First of all, thank you so much ! Ok, so I followed your comments/advises, here are my replies/questions: > * Add the following %check section to your spec file between the %install > and %files sections: > > %check > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop Done ! > Also, since atomes is a graphical desktop application, we should add an > AppStream metadata XML file, so that it gets picked up by > software-center-type graphical installers, take a look at > https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/ Will do ASAP > To simplify things, tag a 1.1.6 release in the upstream repository (which I > suppose is https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes) and use that as your source > tarball, i.e.: > Source0: > https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz Ok so here I do have some questions, if I tag a release, then I noticed that everything inside the repo is packaged into a single acrive, but the repo contains other stuff that only Fedora RPMs data, not only that but it seems to me that to work this method would require the repo to host the files of the GNU tarball, so that when I create a release it will create the tarball required to build the RPM ... Is the tag a mandatory requirement ? If that is true, then should I create another repo / change this one so that it behave as I mentioned ? Then the following should work (sure it does not for the time being): > You could then change the source URL to: > Source0: > https://github.com/Slookeur/%{upname}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Asked for the CNRS advise about this, will correct ASAP Will also correct the licence tag thanks to your last comment. > *** remember to tag the 1.1.6 release (or whatever subsequent number you decide) Back to my previous question, is it mandatory ? > *** You can replace any instance of "atomes" with "%{name}" for the added fun I actually did ;-) > *** As part of the review process, you should have provided a link to a > successful scratch build in koji. COPR is fine and all, but it's not the > "official" build system. Here's one for you: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92962219 Ok, to be honest this is likely related to my email about the doc yesterday, I do not really understand what koji is, or even what is a build in Koji, it mentioned yet not explain or a least no clearly enough for newbie to understand. I am discovering the website with your link, but I am not listed as a user there, not sure I can access it ... sorry but could you help me figure out how to provide this famous build with Koji ... I sure need to learn that ;-) > *** See the note above about desktop-file-validate. Once we prepare the > AppStream metadata file, you'll also need to add a check for that as well. > Sure > Generic: > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). I guess this is related to your Koji (local) build, is it ? > > *** When running rpmlint locally, I get this: > > atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/atomes-1.1.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug > atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information > /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/atomes-1.1.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug > atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation > atomes-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation > atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{gpgverify} > atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2} > atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1} > atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0} > atomes.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: ./atomes-1.1.6.tar.gz.asc > atomes.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ./atomes-1.1.6.tar.gz > atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/63/87711d22856dbdedd43a6fa85603b1e6bae1ab > ../../../.build-id/63/87711d22856dbdedd43a6fa85603b1e6bae1ab I will try to find some info about the debuginfo warnings > I'm not really sure about the debuginfo warnings and error and I've seen > them in other packages, maybe it's worth asking on devel about them. As for > the "macro-in-comment" warnings, when you want to comment out a line that > contains a macro, you need to add an extra percent sign to comment out the > existing ones, i.e. your %prep line should be changed to this: > %prep > # %%{gpgverify} --keyring='%%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%%{SOURCE1}' > --data='%%{SOURCE0}' Done -- 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
