[Bug 2130607] Review Request: Atomes - An atomistic tool box

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607



--- Comment #23 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Just three small things left:


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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 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.
[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]: 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]: 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.
[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

===== 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).
[x]: 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.

*** You can remove the gpg key from the sources, since you are not using it.
You can always add it back at a later time if you decide to use signature
verification.

[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

*** The AppStream metadata file is missing, it should be installed into
%{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/ and then you should add this to your %check
section:
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
%{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml
and a corresponding entry in %files.

[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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:
[!]: 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).
     See: (this test has no URL)

*** This must be fixed.

[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 7710720 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 3

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-GNU/archive/refs/tags/v1.1.7.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
75ae0a4b7ce7b25599de0a410f9892df97a6f91fb8301320f5b6920766767f7f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
75ae0a4b7ce7b25599de0a410f9892df97a6f91fb8301320f5b6920766767f7f


Requires
--------
atomes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    bash-completion
    desktop-file-utils
    freeglut
    gtk3
    libavcodec.so.59()(64bit)
    libavcodec.so.59(LIBAVCODEC_59)(64bit)
    libavformat.so.59()(64bit)
    libavformat.so.59(LIBAVFORMAT_59)(64bit)
    libavutil.so.57()(64bit)
    libavutil.so.57(LIBAVUTIL_57)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libepoxy.so.0()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libswscale.so.6()(64bit)
    libswscale.so.6(LIBSWSCALE_6)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.5)(64bit)
    mesa-libGLU
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

atomes-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

atomes-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
atomes:
    application()
    application(atomes.desktop)
    atomes
    atomes(x86-64)
    mimehandler(application/x-extension-apf)
    mimehandler(application/x-extension-awf)

atomes-debuginfo:
    atomes-debuginfo
    atomes-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)

atomes-debugsource:
    atomes-debugsource
    atomes-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/srpm/atomes.spec  2022-10-18
09:32:52.275983796 +0200
+++ /home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/srpm-unpacked/atomes.spec 2022-10-17
16:12:55.000000000 +0200
@@ -6,4 +6,6 @@
 License:        AGPL-3.0-or-later
 Source0:       
https://github.com/Slookeur/%{upname}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
+Source1:        ./v%{version}.tar.gz.asc
+Source2:        %{name}.gpg
 URL:            https://%{name}.ipcms.fr/

@@ -60,4 +62,5 @@

 %prep
+# %%{gpgverify} --keyring='%%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%%{SOURCE1}'
--data='%%{SOURCE0}'
 %autosetup -n %{upname}-%{version}



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2130607 -v
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java, R, SugarActivity,
Python
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=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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux