https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426994
Athos Ribeiro <athoscribe...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Athos Ribeiro <athoscribe...@gmail.com> ---
Hi Tonet,
Thanks for looking ofr a solution on the archs problem.
Note that rpmlint throw the following warnings:
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.src:42: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main
package) %{_libdir}/rhythmbox/plugins/alternative-toolbar/
The first warning should be ignored as stated in [1].
For the second one, as we can see in [2], [3] and [4], it makes more sense to
make your package arched. Since I took to long to realize this, I am also
including a new version of the spec file here for you and approving your
package!
Note that by changing the package from an noarch package to an arched package,
rpmlint will trigger an error about not having a binary file in an arched
package. The other rhythmbox plugins are also arched and do not have binary
files as well, and since one of them is packaged with rhythmbox itself, I will
understand this is the right wat to go with rhythmbox plugins.
Spec URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar-0.17.3-4.fc25.src.rpm
Package approved.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436500
[2]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rhythmbox-ampache.git/tree/rhythmbox-ampache.spec?id=540c6b5f52ff1be27b4897f0da5e255cf53a0611#n62
[3] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/203
[4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222484
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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
===== 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar-0.17.3-3.fc27.noarch.rpm
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar-0.17.3-3.fc27.src.rpm
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.src:42: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main
package) %{_libdir}/rhythmbox/plugins/alternative-toolbar/
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rhythmbox
Provides
--------
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar:
rhythmbox-alternative-toolbar
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fossfreedom/alternative-toolbar/archive/v0.17.3/alternative-toolbar-0.17.3.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
0abd67515e766d1611d2a206eb0e31f6553c0c6e3db84a6b08a0723a511aa138
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0abd67515e766d1611d2a206eb0e31f6553c0c6e3db84a6b08a0723a511aa138
--
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
