https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243260 Pavol Zacik <pzacik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ernunes@xxxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #7 from Pavol Zacik <pzacik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > I did not spend much time trying to do that and figure out about the version bump so far. As I mentioned in comment #0, my proposal is to solve the package split first by having it exactly as it was on mesa-demos as a reference starting point and then solve the version bump and downstream patch cleanup in a followup commit. OK, that sounds legit. Some more issues/comments: - I would add %doc to %files with at least ChangeLog and README. - The Source link should use at least the %version macro instead of the hardcoded version. That way, you won't need to update it with the new version. - Once you update the package to the newest version, you can also include signature verification into %prep [1]; the upstream releases signatures since version 1.0.5 (look for xdriinfo-1.0.5.tar.gz.sig at [2]). [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures [2] https://www.x.org/archive/individual/app/ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: no use of %version in Source. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. The conflict is well justified. [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. [!]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: justified by the packager. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: missing link or justification. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: the package does not contain any test. [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]: 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: [!]: 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). [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: xdriinfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm xdriinfo-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm xdriinfo-debugsource-1.0.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm xdriinfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.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/tmprmiifun4')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ==================================================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==================================================================================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xdriinfo-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.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/tmp7_z432uz')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ==================================================================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==================================================================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/xdriinfo-1.0.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35c6e43d3b68ef5d93d013b4517014fb890bad96b2c801abf4f607927a94cb1c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35c6e43d3b68ef5d93d013b4517014fb890bad96b2c801abf4f607927a94cb1c Requires -------- xdriinfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xdriinfo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xdriinfo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xdriinfo: xdriinfo xdriinfo(x86-64) xdriinfo-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) xdriinfo-debuginfo xdriinfo-debuginfo(x86-64) xdriinfo-debugsource: xdriinfo-debugsource xdriinfo-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/pavol/fedora/2243260-xdriinfo/srpm/xdriinfo.spec 2023-10-18 11:24:09.866422274 +0200 +++ /home/pavol/fedora/2243260-xdriinfo/srpm-unpacked/xdriinfo.spec 2023-10-11 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -35,5 +35,5 @@ %license COPYING %{_bindir}/xdriinfo -%{_mandir}/man1/xdriinfo.1* +%{_datadir}/man/man1/xdriinfo.1* %changelog Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2243260 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java, R, fonts, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2243260 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202243260%23c7 _______________________________________________ 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
