https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334930 --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I found just a couple of minor issues: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes ===== - I don’t have personal experience with .typelib files, and we don’t have formal guidelines on packaging GObject introspection-related files (https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1049). However, the practices in this spec file are consistent with the discussion in the packaging committee issue and with common sense. From https://developer.gnome.org/documentation/guidelines/programming/introspection.html, “The GIR file is human readable, and can be inspected manually to see if the API has been introspected correctly (although the GIR compilation process will print error messages and warnings for any missing annotations or other problems). The GIR file is typically used by bindings that generate code, or to generate the API reference for your project. The typelib file is an efficient binary representation of the GIR data, which can be opened at run time by dynamic languages.” Thus, it *seems* correct that the .gir file is in the -devel package (for code generation) and the .typelib file is in the base package (for runtime introspection). ===== Issues ===== - Strictly speaking, since src/casilda-version.h.in and src/casilda.h are LGPL-2.1-or-later, the License field needs to reflect this. Change License: LGPL-2.1-only to something like this: # The entire source is LGPL-2.1-only, except src/casilda.h and # src/casilda-version.h.in, which are LGPL-2.1-or-later. License: LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later The license-breakdown comment is no longer formally required, but is very helpful. There is an inconsistency between the license notice and the SPDX-License-Identifier in src/casilda.h. I opened https://gitlab.gnome.org/jpu/casilda/-/merge_requests/3 to fix it. You might choose to reference this PR in a comment as well. - Since meson always uses ninja-build, this is harmless but redundant BuildRequires: ninja-build and I recommend removing it. Furthermore, this is spurious and should be removed: BuildRequires: cmake - Since the build system uses pkg-config to resolve dependencies, you should express those dependencies as pkgconfig(foo) rather than as foo-devel. This also allows you to drop the explicit BuildRequires on pkgconfig. I recommend rewriting BuildRequires: cmake BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: gobject-introspection-devel BuildRequires: gtk4-devel BuildRequires: libepoxy-devel BuildRequires: libxkbcommon-devel BuildRequires: libxkbcommon-x11-devel BuildRequires: meson BuildRequires: ninja-build BuildRequires: pixman-devel BuildRequires: pkgconfig BuildRequires: wayland-devel BuildRequires: wayland-protocols-devel BuildRequires: wlroots-devel as something like BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: meson BuildRequires: pkgconfig(epoxy) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gobject-introspection-1.0) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk4) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(pixman-1) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wayland-protocols) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wayland-scanner) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wayland-server) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wlroots-0.18) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(x11-xcb) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xkbcommon) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xkbcommon-x11) These can be easily matched up with the dependencies named in the top-level meson.build, except for pkgconfig(gobject-introspection-1.0), which isn’t explicitly named there but *is* mandatory and *is* resolved via pkg-config. ===== 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2334930-casilda/licensecheck.txt Two files are LGPL-2.1-or-later, not LGPL-2.1-only. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gir-1.0(goocanvas2-devel, libgweather-devel, libgdl-devel, gtksourceview5-devel, gst-devtools-devel, libgnomekbd-devel, libsoup- devel, appstream-devel, gsound-devel, libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel, colord-gtk-devel, GConf2-devel, gnome-bluetooth3.34-libs-devel, json- glib-devel, libadwaita-devel, fcitx5-gtk-devel, gtk3-devel, zbar-gtk- devel, libgedit-gtksourceview-devel, libgdata-devel, gnome-menus- devel, gucharmap-devel, glade-devel, libpeas1-devel, librsvg2-devel, libarrow-dataset-glib-devel, libmanette-devel, gobject-introspection- devel, libmodulemd-devel, at-spi2-core-devel, harfbuzz-devel, libdazzle-devel, jsonrpc-glib-devel, gcr-devel, gdk-pixbuf2-devel, gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel, gegl04-devel, libcryptui-devel, gmobile- devel, libsoup3-devel, gplugin-gtk4-devel, webkit2gtk4.0-devel, libayatana-appindicator-gtk2-devel, libarrow-glib-devel, malcontent- devel, libmks-devel, gtk4-devel, libgee-devel, accountsservice-devel, javascriptcoregtk4.0-devel, gtksourceview4-devel, libcloudproviders- devel, libmypaint-devel, ghex-devel, gtk2-devel, libgepub-devel, clutter-devel, libgexiv2-devel, tracker-devel, grilo-devel, fcitx- devel, libdmapsharing4-devel, libdex-devel, libshumate-devel, gitg- devel, gnome-bluetooth-libs-devel, javascriptcoregtk6.0-devel, rygel- devel, webkit2gtk4.1-devel, javascriptcoregtk4.1-devel, gssdp-devel, libxmlb-devel, vte291-devel, gupnp-dlna-devel, gdm-devel, gnome- autoar-devel, graphene-devel, libgtop2-devel, libgxps-devel, tepl- devel, babl-devel, template-glib-devel, libpeas-devel, vte-devel, libayatana-appindicator-gtk3-devel, libgnome-keyring-devel, vips- devel, libinsane-gobject-devel, parquet-glib-devel, libhandy-devel, libproxy-devel, bamf-devel, malcontent-ui-devel, libchamplain-devel, totem-pl-parser-devel, gsequencer-devel, atk-devel, libjcat-devel, gmime30-devel, libsecret-devel, gspell-devel, gnome-online-accounts- devel, gupnp-av-devel, gupnp-igd-devel, gplugin-devel, webkitgtk6.0-devel, gcr3-devel, gupnp-devel, glib2-devel, libpanel- devel, libmash-devel, libxklavier-devel, budgie-desktop-devel, geoclue2-devel, ibus-devel, gimp-devel, amtk-devel, gnome-calculator- devel), /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0(glade-libs, gitg-libs, at- spi2-core, gnome-menus, libpanel, gst-devtools, webkit2gtk4.1, gmobile, libdazzle, vte291, gnome-calculator, libgweather, playerctl- libs, babl, libgtop2, template-glib, rygel, libgnome-keyring, gnome- autoar, gupnp, accountsservice-libs, libcloudproviders, webkitgtk6.0, goocanvas2, javascriptcoregtk4.0, gsequencer, vte, gtksourceview5, gupnp-dlna, vips, libarrow-glib-libs, gimp-libs, atk, fcitx-libs, gtk3, grilo, libxmlb, libarrow-flight-libs, libproxy, libpeas1, gspell, libgdata, libsoup3, libdex, appstream, graphene, gupnp-av, gnome-bluetooth-libs, tepl, gobject-introspection, libchamplain, libdmapsharing4, malcontent-libs, libgexiv2, libarrow-dataset-glib- libs, gcr3, libxklavier, librsvg2, libtracker-sparql, malcontent-ui- libs, gssdp, libsecret, gnome-online-accounts, amtk, geoclue2-libs, gcr-libs, libgepub, gplugin-gtk4-libs, clutter, harfbuzz, libjcat, gtksourceview4, gtk4, gdk-pixbuf2, libmash, zbar-gtk, libpeas, libhandy, libgee, webkit2gtk4.0, libinsane-gobject, libgdl, gtk2, GConf2, ibus-libs, libmypaint, libsoup, gmime30, json-glib, libmanette, libmks, libgnomekbd, gucharmap-libs, libgxps, gsound, libcryptui, libmodulemd, parquet-glib-libs, jsonrpc-glib, libshumate, libgedit-gtksourceview, gplugin-libs, javascriptcoregtk6.0, gupnp-igd, ghex-libs, glib2, javascriptcoregtk4.1, gnome-bluetooth3.34-libs, gstreamer1-rtsp-server) Co-ownership of the %{_datadir}/gir-1.0 and %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0 directories is appropriate. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 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]: 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 2270 bytes in 1 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. I’m not sure how to test this. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127677565 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream does not provide any tests. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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) OK: differences are only due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: casilda-0.2.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm casilda-devel-0.2.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm casilda-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpxqocyz_p')] checks: 32, packages: 3 casilda.src: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots') casilda.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots') casilda-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: casilda-debuginfo-0.2.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmprp1v84t0')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 3 casilda.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots') casilda-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/jpu/casilda/-/archive/0.2.0/casilda-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c3e675bbc49db4d49ca0db865dfabd393edd7a48e1086e8b6fa179d5399d85f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c3e675bbc49db4d49ca0db865dfabd393edd7a48e1086e8b6fa179d5399d85f Requires -------- casilda (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11-xcb.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.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_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-server.so.0()(64bit) libwlroots-0.18.so()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) casilda-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config casilda(x86-64) libcasilda-0.1.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(gtk4) pkgconfig(wlroots-0.18) Provides -------- casilda: casilda casilda(x86-64) libcasilda-0.1.so.0()(64bit) casilda-devel: casilda-devel casilda-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(casilda-0.1) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2334930-casilda/srpm/casilda.spec 2025-01-08 09:54:26.117688965 -0500 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2334930-casilda/srpm-unpacked/casilda.spec 2024-12-29 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%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 + Name: casilda Version: 0.2.0 @@ -72,3 +82,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Dec 30 2024 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.2.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2334930 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Python, Haskell 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=2334930 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202334930%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
