https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763285
Matthew Krupcale <mkrupc...@matthewkrupcale.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |mkrupcale@matthewkrupcale.c
| |om
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |mkrupcale@matthewkrupcale.c
| |om
Flags| |fedora-review?
| |needinfo?(lkund...@v3.sk)
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Krupcale <mkrupc...@matthewkrupcale.com> ---
For the most part, this is close to ready, except for a few {Build,}Requires
and Obsoletes issues and license packaging details.
Since this is splitting off from network-manager-applet, I looked at that spec
file, and it seems to indicate that libnma{,-devel} should obsolete
libnm-gtk{,-devel}. However, this currently seems to obsolete a much older
NetworkManager-gtk-devel (also missing obsoletes on the main library package).
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- %bcond_without should be used for defining with by default
You may have this backwards for libnma_gtk4
See: https://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html
- -devel and -gtk4-devel should require arch-dependent library packages:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
and
Requires: %{name}-gtk4%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
respectively
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
- -gtk4 and -gtk4-devel subpackages should only be defined when
%if %{with libnma_gtk4}
- Should Obsoletes: libnm-gtk{,-devel}
- %ldconfig_scriptlets is unnecessary on F28+
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
- License should be "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" due to contents in shared/
Should install COPYING.LGPLv2.1.
This should be documented in the spec file as well.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
- License not installed with -gtk4
- Consider moving %{_datadir}/gtk-doc files to noarch -devel-doc subpackage
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libnma-
devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: 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:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1331200 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libnma-1.8.26-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-devel-1.8.26-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-debuginfo-1.8.26-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-debugsource-1.8.26-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
libnma-1.8.26-1.fc32.src.rpm
libnma-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided NetworkManager-gtk-devel
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libnma-debuginfo-1.8.26-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
LANGUAGE = (unset),
LC_ALL = (unset),
LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
LANGUAGE = (unset),
LC_ALL = (unset),
LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
libnma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
libnma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libnma-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided NetworkManager-gtk-devel
libnma.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libnma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libnma/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://download.gnome.org/sources/libnma/1.8/libnma-1.8.26.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4e419d5fe4f0360b25f9fe9223a4ed6da94984a5dcd999679856c78c46a334f1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4e419d5fe4f0360b25f9fe9223a4ed6da94984a5dcd999679856c78c46a334f1
Requires
--------
libnma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
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)
libgck-1.so.0()(64bit)
libgcr-base-3.so.1()(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libnm.so.0()(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_0_0)(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_2_0)(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_6_0)(64bit)
libnm.so.0(libnm_1_8_0)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
libnma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
NetworkManager-libnm-devel
gtk3-devel
libnma
libnma.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig
pkgconfig(libnm)
libnma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libnma-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
libnma:
libnma
libnma(x86-64)
libnma.so.0()(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_2_0)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_0)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_12)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_20)(64bit)
libnma.so.0(libnma_1_8_22)(64bit)
libnma-devel:
libnma-devel
libnma-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libnma)
libnma-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
libnma-debuginfo
libnma-debuginfo(x86-64)
libnma-debugsource:
libnma-debugsource
libnma-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --copr-build
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkrupcale/package-review/build/1087146/
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, R, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, fonts, PHP,
SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
