https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #18 from Benson Muite <benson_mu...@emailplus.org> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
===== 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 GNU Lesser General
Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
Public License v3.0 or later". 80 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2243093-mat2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
[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).
[ ]: 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]: 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 23593 bytes in 6 files.
[ ]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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
Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
===== 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-libmat2
[ ]: 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.
[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]: 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 all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mat2-0.13.4-3.fc40.noarch.rpm
python3-libmat2-0.13.4-3.fc40.noarch.rpm
mat2-dolphin-0.13.4-3.fc40.noarch.rpm
mat2-0.13.4-3.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpxqexu2p7')]
checks: 31, packages: 4
mat2.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2
mat2.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency poppler-glib
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken
0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/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
checks: 31, packages: 3
mat2.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2
mat2.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency poppler-glib
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken
0.1 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2/uploads/95d1f3782dfc731545fd9b467c594cb2/mat2-0.13.4.tar.gz.asc
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b2100acfcdadf2d5b3bc116298e4bd0a073954d04f9c455c04b01590aaa680bf
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b2100acfcdadf2d5b3bc116298e4bd0a073954d04f9c455c04b01590aaa680bf
https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2/-/archive/0.13.4/mat2-0.13.4.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
dbd30f33edd9b99042b3d9ec2b5e7e9c9a08bba4318bcf3fa63be8854cc871db
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
dbd30f33edd9b99042b3d9ec2b5e7e9c9a08bba4318bcf3fa63be8854cc871db
Requires
--------
mat2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
gdk-pixbuf2-modules
hicolor-icon-theme
librsvg2
mailcap
perl-Image-ExifTool
poppler-glib
python3-libmat2
python3-libmat2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3.12dist(mutagen)
python3.12dist(pycairo)
python3.12dist(pygobject)
mat2-dolphin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dolphin
kf5-filesystem
python3-libmat2
Provides
--------
mat2:
mat2
python-mat2
python3-mat2
python3.12-mat2
python3-libmat2:
python-libmat2
python3-libmat2
python3.12-libmat2
python3.12dist(mat)
python3dist(mat)
mat2-dolphin:
mat2-dolphin
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2243093
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, C/C++, R, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, PHP,
Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments:
a) This seems no longer needed
# *** WARNING: ./usr/share/kservices5/ServiceMenus/mat2.desktop is executable
but has no shebang, removing executable bit
b) To ensure icon directories have owners, the section
# For Dolphin integration icon: mat2.svg
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
should be in the dolphin subpackage, not in the main package
c) Rather than:
# No need to validate .desktop file for KDE services. Answer in Matrix from KDE
# devs:
#
Maybe refer to KDE documentation:
https://develop.kde.org/docs/apps/dolphin/service-menus/
Also, should the file go into /usr/share/kservices5
The current service desktop files does not validate correctly,
and probably will not, but checking this.
d) Can the build warnings in the log be fixed? Upstream does not test on
python3.12 but probably should:
https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2/-/blob/master/.gitlab-ci.yml?
e) The %{gpgverify} macro must be used:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures
--
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=2243093
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202243093%23c18
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
