https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270340 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Few notes: * This app has bundled library ```uudevide```. Please add "Provides: bundled(uudevide)". * I believe you should move changelog to changelog file and continue with %autochangelog (not a blocker). * License field has to be improved. Please add GPL-2.0-or-later for bundled uudeview and add licensing breakdown in comments. * Missing Requires - hicolor-icon-theme (owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor) * Current version is 0.160.0. Consider upgrading your package. Please comment/address these issues and we'll finish it. Apart from that I can't see any other issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pan See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ^^^ False positives. Well, we do know that pak existed before but was abandoned that's why re-reviewing it. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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 must match the actual license. Se my notes above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. See my notes above. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. See my note above about missing /usr/share/icons/hicolor owner. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. See above. I don't see it as a blocker though. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Consider using %autochangelog. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: No development files. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [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 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]: 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 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]: 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). [?]: I didn not test if the package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is not packaged (0.155.0 vs. 0.160.0). See my note above. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream doesn't publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Very basic ones though. [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). See: (this test has no URL) [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2549760 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/pan/-/archive/v0.155/pan-v0.155.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 49acd5e18e323e16f53438ac7721cf0fb2d8c1c78846e69c8985dd3640187670 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 49acd5e18e323e16f53438ac7721cf0fb2d8c1c78846e69c8985dd3640187670 Requires -------- pan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libenchant-2.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmime-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtkspell3-3.so.0()(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pan-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pan-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pan: application() application(org.gnome.pan.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.gnome.pan.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(application/x-nzb) pan pan(x86-64) pan-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pan-debuginfo pan-debuginfo(x86-64) pan-debugsource: pan-debugsource pan-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2270340-pan/srpm/pan.spec 2024-08-15 13:08:50.745657364 +0200 +++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2270340-pan/srpm-unpacked/pan.spec 2024-03-19 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Summary: A Usenet newsreader for GNOME/GTK+ Name: pan Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2270340 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, SugarActivity, R, Java, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl 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=2270340 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202270340%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ 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
