https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> ---
Here are the issues that were picked up by fedora-review, I will need to take a
better look at a few other things as well, such as the licensing scheme, but
you can work on these for now:
1. Missing BR against the compiler, I guess it's gcc-c++.
2. I think I would have gone with antimicroX, antimicroX-libs and
antimicroX-devel, but I also find your separation of libantilib subpackages
reasonable. I think the shared library should either be versioned or moved. Is
it required in order to run antimicroX, to build the package, or is it just
provided in case someone wants to build some other program integrating its
functionality? When rpmlint is run on the packages, it complains:
antimicroX-libantilib.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libantilib.so
libantilib.so
Depending on how it's supposed to be used, moving it to %{_libdir}/%{name} or
%{_libdir}/libantilib/ might be the safest option.
Maybe these will help:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#invalid-soname
3. Problems with permissions:
antimicroX.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/antimicroX/Changelog
antimicroX.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/antimicroX/README.md
antimicroX.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/antimicroX/LICENSE
These three should have the executable bit removed.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
4. File and directory ownership.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/antimicroX/translations,
/usr/share/antimicroX/images, /usr/share/antimicroX/icons
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/antimicroX/images,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
/usr/share/antimicroX/translations, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
/usr/share/antimicroX/icons, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
/usr/share/mime, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/mime/packages,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps
For the directories under /usr/share/anitimicroX, I believe that changing this
line in your %files section
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
to
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
would solve the issue.
For the icon files, you can use something like this:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.*
5. There are multiple licenses present, I need to verify if GPLv3+ is enough,
or if it should be a mixed license or if the effective license is one of the
others. This might take a while.
I'll get back to you if I find something else in the meantime.
--
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
