https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272744 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This is fedora-review not recognizing "g++" and only knowing the "real name" of "gcc-c++". Meh. > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > file-validate if there is such a file. This can be fixed by adding "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" and adding after the %install section the following: %check desktop-file-validate %{_datarootdir}/wayland-sessions/miracle-wm.desktop > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > Uhh, I'm not sure what's going on here. I guess you didn't use a source tarball generated by GitHub here. > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [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. > [!]: 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. > [!]: 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". 161 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2272744-miracle-wm/licensecheck.txt You're missing some kind of license header on the Miracle source files, which is making it difficult to identify what license this stuff is in. Having the standard LGPL-3.0-or-later header on the source files would fix this. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Add "%license LICENSE" to the %files list. > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > architectures. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Do we have tests we can run? I see a tests folder... -- 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=2272744 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202272744%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
