https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250478 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-notifications See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names This package was previously retired by the submitter of the current review request. This is a review for unretirement under https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming. No action is required here, except that according to that policy, the submitter should announce their intent to unretire the package on the devel mailing list. - Please make the dependency from the -demo subpackage on the base package arch-specific as prescribed in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package. Change: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} ===== MUST items ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 227 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2250478-elementary- notifications/licensecheck.txt The source file vapi/libcanberra-gtk3.vapi is LGPL-2.1-or-later, but: - it merely defines function signatures like a C header - it is used as an input to the Vala compiler, but is not installed Like a C header that doesn’t constitute a “header-only library,” it is therefore reasonable to decide that it does not contribute to the license of the binary RPMs. [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. [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 715 bytes in 1 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in elementary-notifications-demo [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream provides no tests, but the necessary desktop file and AppStream XML validation steps are present. [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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: elementary-notifications-7.0.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm elementary-notifications-demo-7.0.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm elementary-notifications-debuginfo-7.0.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm elementary-notifications-debugsource-7.0.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm elementary-notifications-7.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm =========================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6jqewdqn')] checks: 31, packages: 5 elementary-notifications.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary io.elementary.notifications elementary-notifications-demo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary io.elementary.notifications.demo elementary-notifications-demo.x86_64: W: no-documentation ============ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: elementary-notifications-debuginfo-7.0.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm elementary-notifications-demo-debuginfo-7.0.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm =========================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpjs45edx1')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ============ 2 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/python3.12/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: 5 elementary-notifications-demo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary io.elementary.notifications.demo elementary-notifications.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary io.elementary.notifications elementary-notifications-demo.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elementary/notifications/archive/7.0.1/notifications-7.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50002650d4f15413017729ee88d47d86e7aed6a9539099651a731a5c32db7ede CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50002650d4f15413017729ee88d47d86e7aed6a9539099651a731a5c32db7ede Requires -------- elementary-notifications (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(elementary-notifications) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcanberra-gtk3.so.0()(64bit) libcanberra.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(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) libgranite.so.6()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-1.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-1.so.0(LIBHANDY_1_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) elementary-notifications-demo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): elementary-notifications libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgranite.so.6()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) elementary-notifications-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): elementary-notifications-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- elementary-notifications: config(elementary-notifications) elementary-notifications elementary-notifications(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(io.elementary.notifications.metainfo.xml) elementary-notifications-demo: application() application(io.elementary.notifications.demo.desktop) elementary-notifications-demo elementary-notifications-demo(x86-64) elementary-notifications-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) elementary-notifications-debuginfo elementary-notifications-debuginfo(x86-64) elementary-notifications-debugsource: elementary-notifications-debugsource elementary-notifications-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2250478 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2250478 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202250478%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
