https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271737 Dominique Martinet <g.fhnrunznrqeqf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |g.fhnrunznrqeqf@xxxxxxxxxxx | |.org --- Comment #2 from Dominique Martinet <g.fhnrunznrqeqf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello! A few comments, first from rpmlint: > mogui.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-qt5 I couldn't find any documentation about this warning as it appears to be new.. The commit that added the warning ( https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/pull/1022/commits/76a091814a85e13a75cea16cc862911c5b9cf6c1 ) seems to say it compares requirements.txt with requires in the rpm? given rpmbuild automatically adds the following you can drop python3 and python3-qt5 from the requires altogether: python(abi) = 3.12 python3.12dist(pyqt5) > mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.csh > mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.sh Probably safe to ignore given other providers of profile snippets do the same; I'd have expected a /lib/profile.d to pop up by now but there doesn't seem to be any alternative at this point. > mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui > mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-cmd > mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-setup-env Given it's a gui I guess it's not too unusual not to have a man page, but I didn't make a difference between mogui-cmd and mogui so it might warrant some documentation? mogui.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/bin/mogui-cmd /usr/bin/mogui Ah, it's the same file, that's explain why I didn't make a difference.. Do we need both? The README doesn't mention mogui-cmd, so I'd keep just the former. for fedora-review output, skipping automatic ok checks [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. GPL-2.0+ is ok [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. Not sure why it doesn't consider %license COPYING.GPLv2.. ok. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/profile.d, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share, /usr/bin, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/doc, /etc, /usr/share/fish, /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /etc/profile.d, /usr/share/doc, /etc, /usr/share, /usr/share/fish, /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/bin I don't see other packages adding these directories so it's probably fine? [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ok [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. Looks correct to me! [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Not sure what wouldn't bee permissible here.. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. There's none -- should we add one? [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package None so that's ok. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ok. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ok. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ - looks ok. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. installed ok on my bloated system, not sure how to check otherwise? [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. yese [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. not applicable [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. already pointed out to remove them [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. yes [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. not needed [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. noarch, so ok. [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) no such egg [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. built in mock so without network just fine [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. not used. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ looks ok to me at first glance [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Not sure why this is marked as fail, worked here. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. text is included [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). yes [ ]: Package functions as described. seems to work from quick test [ ]: Latest version is packaged. I'll assume that's a yes [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. yes [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. I assume no signature upstream ? [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. noarch, so ok. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. no check, but it's hard to check a gui... [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. not sure how that'd work for python, pass. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define srcname modules-gui I guess that one should be changed to %global. The spec itself is small enough and I didn't see anything else obviously wrong with it -- 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=2271737 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202271737%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
