https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433003
Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |zebo...@gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
Hello Samuel,
- Group: is not used in Fedora, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
- Use these simplified URL:
Source0:
https://github.com/OpenBoardView/OpenBoardView/archive/R%{version}/openboardview-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1:
https://github.com/Dav1dde/glad/archive/%{commit1}/%{name1}-%{shortcommit1}.tar.gz
Source2:
https://github.com/inflex/imgui/archive/%{commit2}/%{name2}-%{shortcommit2}.tar.gz
Source3:
https://github.com/sheredom/utf8.h/archive/%{commit3}/%{name3}-%{shortcommit3}.tar.gz
- All the update-mime-database things are not needed on F24 and above, see
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&oldid=481889#mimeinfo
You just need:
%post
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
fi
%posttrans
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "SIL (v1.1)", "zlib/libpng", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 277 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/openboardview/review-
openboardview/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in openboardview
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
openboardview-debuginfo , openboardview-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: openboardview-7.3-3.fc28.x86_64.rpm
openboardview-debuginfo-7.3-3.fc28.x86_64.rpm
openboardview-debugsource-7.3-3.fc28.x86_64.rpm
openboardview-7.3-3.fc28.src.rpm
openboardview.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colour -> color,
co lour, co-lour
openboardview.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
openboardview.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openboardview.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvconv
openboardview.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openboardview
openboardview-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openboardview.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colour -> color, co
lour, co-lour
openboardview.src: W: strange-permission openboardview-gen-khg-spec-tarball.sh
755
openboardview.src: W: invalid-url Source4: khg-spec-20170928.tar.xz
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: openboardview-debuginfo-7.3-3.fc28.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
openboardview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://openboardview.org
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
openboardview-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://openboardview.org
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
openboardview-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openboardview.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colour -> color,
co lour, co-lour
openboardview.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://openboardview.org <urlopen
error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
openboardview.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
openboardview.x86_64: W: no-documentation
openboardview.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvconv
openboardview.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openboardview
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
--
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
