https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251510 --- Comment #10 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to ycollet from comment #9) > So, still no review posted by the bot. Maybe the best thing to do is to > close this ticket and create a new one using the correct workflow :) ? We don’t have to this time, I can just run fedora-review myself. 😉 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package doesn’t install properly: --- 8< --- DEBUG util.py:446: Error: DEBUG util.py:446: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:446: - nothing provides jalv-gtkmm needed by jalv_select-1.3.0.29ea666-6.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline DEBUG util.py:448: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) --- >8 --- With the recent update to jalv 1.6.8, the jalv.gtkmm program isn’t built anymore and the jalv-gtkmm subpackage is obsoleted by the jalv main package. => Please remove the dependency on jalv-gtkmm - The spec file says the license is “GPL-2.0-or-later”, but the actual license is “Unlicense” (as per the LICENSE file and the header of jalv.select.cpp). => Please update the License: field - The package is of a git snapshot, but the version/release don’t conform to the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Traditionally, the git revision would have to be encoded into the release field. Meanwhile, we put the date and git hash into the version field, separated with a caret “^”, e.g. in the format “<version>^<date><scm><revision>” (there are a couple of formats to choose from). In this case here, the version field would be e.g. “1.3.0^20221019git29ea666”. However, this sorts below the current version of the audinux package “1.3.0.29ea666”, so to make it update the Audinux package you would have to add an epoch. => Set epoch/version/release to e.g.: Epoch: 1 Version: “1.3.0^20221019git29ea666” # or another documented snapshot format, as you prefer Release: 1%{?_dist} - The package should use %_prefix instead of %_usr. The latter is a legacy macro, see the respective section in the Packaging Guidelines for details: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/#macros_installation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: 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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [!]: 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 Note: The package contains a git snapshot but version/release don’t conform to the respective guidelines (see above). [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3325 bytes in 2 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [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. [!]: Spec file uses symbolic macros for common paths. Note: Uses %_usr instead of %_prefix Rpmlint ------- Checking: jalv_select-1.3.0.29ea666-6.fc40.x86_64.rpm jalv_select-debuginfo-1.3.0.29ea666-6.fc40.x86_64.rpm jalv_select-debugsource-1.3.0.29ea666-6.fc40.x86_64.rpm jalv_select-1.3.0.29ea666-6.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/tmpshppyviz')] checks: 31, packages: 4 jalv_select.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jalv.select jalv_select.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.0-6 ['1.3.0.29ea666-6.fc40', '1.3.0.29ea666-6'] =============================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================== ==> The package installs man pages so this must be rpmlint acting up. The version thing is because of the git snapshot. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/brummer10/jalv_select/archive/29ea666b14e6a1c81190b6b6607fa1b090e20209.tar.gz#/jalv_select-29ea666.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 777fd8cda8286e064a1c7fa35bc4e03fee187ab2437f8c97efbe8843f124da6b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 777fd8cda8286e064a1c7fa35bc4e03fee187ab2437f8c97efbe8843f124da6b Requires -------- jalv_select (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jalv jalv-gtk jalv-gtkmm jalv-qt libX11.so.6()(64bit) libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdkmm-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgiomm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtkmm-3.0.so.1()(64bit) liblilv-0.so.0()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) jalv_select-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jalv_select-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jalv_select: application() application(jalv.select.desktop) jalv_select jalv_select(x86-64) jalv_select-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jalv_select-debuginfo jalv_select-debuginfo(x86-64) jalv_select-debugsource: jalv_select-debugsource jalv_select-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2251510 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, fonts 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=2251510 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202251510%23c10 -- _______________________________________________ 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
