[Bug 2182165] Review Request: tuba - Browse the Fediverse

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182165

Felix Wang <topazus@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Felix Wang <topazus@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---
> tuba.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dev.geopjr.Tuba.mo
> tuba.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dev.geopjr.Tuba.mo

Only a minor issue here, which reported invalid-lc-messages-dir and
incorrect-locale-subdir. Maybe the some related links are helpful about this.
[1] [2] [3] [4] Maybe You can reported it to the upstream. Also, I noticed the
dnf package occurred the similar issue.

```
❯ rpmlint -i dnf
=================================================== 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: 1

dnf.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
dnf.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
/usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dnf.mo
dnf.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir
/usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dnf.mo
dnf.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/dnf dnf-3
==================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings,
2 badness; has taken 0.1 s ====================
```

Anyway, the overall package looks good to me. Approved for now.

[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/OZEZYC67QOA4J7R4K3UEPAD3VP3BRJAC/
[2] https://github.com/dino/dino/issues/524
[3]
https://github.com/dino/dino/commit/7d699a2ed265d67a6a48f48cf98fa4ee04fabb1e
[4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674181

---


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

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



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

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 3". 253 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/tuba/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans,
     /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans,
     /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tuba-0.3.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          tuba-debuginfo-0.3.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          tuba-debugsource-0.3.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          tuba-0.3.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpax6knhda')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

tuba.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dev.geopjr.Tuba
tuba.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
/usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dev.geopjr.Tuba.mo
tuba.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir
/usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dev.geopjr.Tuba.mo
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken
0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: tuba-debuginfo-0.3.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmputte5pan')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s 





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

tuba.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dev.geopjr.Tuba
tuba.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
/usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dev.geopjr.Tuba.mo
tuba.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir
/usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/dev.geopjr.Tuba.mo
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken
0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/GeopJr/Tuba/archive/v0.3.2/Tuba-0.3.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
1458b343f069efca00b0b5da49b9eb4b529e49de3d701da06d9529828be19cf9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1458b343f069efca00b0b5da49b9eb4b529e49de3d701da06d9529828be19cf9


Requires
--------
tuba (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgraphene-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit)
    libgtksourceview-5.so.0()(64bit)
    libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libsecret-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

tuba-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

tuba-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
tuba:
    application()
    application(dev.geopjr.Tuba.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(dev.geopjr.Tuba.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/tuba)
    tuba
    tuba(x86-64)

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

tuba-debugsource:
    tuba-debugsource
    tuba-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name
tuba --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, R, Python, fonts, PHP, Haskell,
Ocaml, Java
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=2182165

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202182165%23c11
_______________________________________________
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