https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #3) > I was to late to take this review, but since I am interested in having this > one packaged I looked at it anyway. Thanks! > Here are my first findings: > > > (preliminary) Package Review > ============== > > Issues: > ======= > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > file-validate if there is such a file. > ==>the desktop file is install with a regular install command Added desktop-file-validate. > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/FvwmScript.mo > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_duplicate_files Done. Mo-files installed into standard directory. > ===== 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 matches the actual license. > ==>the source code contains files with a number of different licenses > (fortunately I think they are all allowed by Fedora) > So I think this should be reflected in the License field. > > "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", > fvwm3-1.1.0/fvwm/screen.h > > "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/tree.h > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/queue.h > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.c > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.h > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/ishell/LICENSE > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/readline/LICENSE > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/fatih/color/LICENSE.md > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-colorable/LICENSE > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-isatty/LICENSE > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/LICENSE > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/alt_exit.go > > "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/COPYING > fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/shlex.go > > ISC License > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/asprintf.c > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/log.c > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.c > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.h > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.c > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.h > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.c > fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.h Adjusted licensing info. I did not listed licenses of Golang-files (not used by us yet). > [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > ==> it seems fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/ > contains some bundled go libraries > These should be unbundled or an FPC exception is needed I think. We do not use it so I just removed them during %prep stage. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [-]: 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. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > There is a Requires for sendmail but I don't see any reference > to sendmail in the source code. If this really is needed could you > point out where it is used? Looks like a leftover from fvwm2 package. Removed mention of fvwm-bug and fvwm-menu-headlines. > [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. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 82868 bytes in 2 files. > [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Dist tag is present. > [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > Perl: > [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. > There are perl files in fvwm3-1.1.0/perllib > but thre is no Requires or BuildRequires for perl Re-added perl-generators back which was left during the transition from fvwm2 to fvwm3. > ===== 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). > [ ]: Package functions as described. > ==>I have not tried this yet. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > there is no check section > Also upstream does not provide tests, but maybe if we can think > of some useful tests we could suggest some? We'll need to run X-server and then run fvwm3 inside and then actually check if it can show/manage some windows (xterm?) and maybe something else. If anyone comes up with a plan we can do it. > [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: > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools Done. > [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]: 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 > ------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > ==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output: > > rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm > ================================= rpmlint session starts > ================================= > rpmlint: 2.5.0 > 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: 32, packages: 1 > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.2 s > > rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm > ================================= rpmlint session starts > ================================= > rpmlint: 2.5.0 > 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: 32, packages: 1 > > fvwm3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fvwm-convert-2.6 > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/da/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/sv_SE/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.9 s Relocated mo-files into standard directory. > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > ==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output: > > rpmlint fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm > (none): E: fatal error while reading > fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte > 0xbe in position 444: invalid start byte > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/archive/1.1.0/fvwm3-1.1.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b > > > Requires > -------- > fvwm3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/mimeopen > /usr/bin/perl > /usr/bin/python3 > /usr/bin/sh > /usr/sbin/sendmail > libICE.so.6()(64bit) > libSM.so.6()(64bit) > libX11.so.6()(64bit) > libXcursor.so.1()(64bit) > libXext.so.6()(64bit) > libXft.so.2()(64bit) > libXpm.so.4()(64bit) > libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) > libXrender.so.1()(64bit) > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libcairo.so.2()(64bit) > libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit) > libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) > libfribidi.so.0()(64bit) > libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > libpng16.so.16()(64bit) > libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) > libreadline.so.8()(64bit) > librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) > python3-pyxdg > rtld(GNU_HASH) > xdg-utils > xlockmore > xterm > > fvwm3-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > fvwm3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > fvwm3: > fvwm3 > fvwm3(x86-64) > > fvwm3-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > fvwm3-debuginfo > fvwm3-debuginfo(x86-64) > > fvwm3-debugsource: > fvwm3-debugsource > fvwm3-debugsource(x86-64) > > > > AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > ------------------------------ > AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: fvwm3-1.1.0-build/fvwm3-1.1.0/configure.ac:22 Fixed see note above. > Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315970 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: C/C++, Perl, Shell-api, Generic > Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, R, Python > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm New koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125508139 -- 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=2315970 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202315970%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
