[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 Bastien Nocera changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-09-10 14:11:48 --- Comment #14 from Bastien Nocera --- Built in malcontent-0.8.0-5.fc34 -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/malcontent -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Andy Mender --- Great, approved! Thanks a lot for the feedback, Kalev :). -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #11 from Kalev Lember --- Looks good to me now, thanks! -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #10 from Bastien Nocera --- All done, same location. Scratch build here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50989830 -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199
--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember ---
Nice, thanks for the fixes! I'll let Andy do the final pass but looking good to
me :)
Just a few more remarks below:
(In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #8)
> (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #7)
> > I don't think there's any requirement for shipping a docs within all
> > subpackages. It's just dumb rpmlint warning about not having docs and that
> > warning is fine to ignore. rpmlint output doesn't 100% match our packaging
> > guidelines and best practices.
> >
> > What stand-alone subpackages need to have is a license file specified with
> > %license (which they already have).
> >
> >
> > I do have some other random comments here I noticed while going through the
> > spec file:
> >
> >
> > > Requires: gnome-user-docs
> >
> > Why is this hard dep necessary? It seems wrong from minimization point of
> > view to drag in an unrelated docs package if one just wants to install the
> > library.
>
> It was so that the /usr/share/help sub-directories were created. I've tried
> to fix that up
> in the latest version. Let me know if you wanted it done some other way, I
> couldn't actually find examples in the checked out packages.
Ahh, that's usually done with '%find_lang --with_gnome' which then picks up all
the individual directories under /usr/share/help and adds the correct %files
lang() attributes etc and writes it out to malcontent.lang, which you then
include with %files -f malcontent.lang. I think the only missing part is adding
--with-gnome to %find_lang and then you can drop the gnome-user-docs requires
and all of the %{_datadir}/help references from %files.
> > > %check
> > > desktop-file-validate
> > > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/org.freedesktop.MalcontentControl.desktop
> >
> > It should also have appdata validation here.
>
> Done, but disabled for now:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/-/issues/23
It should be validate-relax which should make it pass. appstream-util uses a
bit weird naming there, but the idea was for 'validate' to mean "validate stuff
that flathub wants" and 'validate-relax' to be "validate stuff that
package-based distros want".
> %files ui-libs
> %license COPYING
> %doc README.md
> %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0/MalcontentUi-0.typelib
This should have '%dir %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0' to own the directory as
well.
> %files libs
> %license COPYING
> %doc README.md
> %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0/Malcontent-0.typelib
... and same here, '%dir %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0', which would then allow
dropping 'Requires: gobject-introspection' from above.
--
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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199
--- Comment #8 from Bastien Nocera ---
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #7)
> I don't think there's any requirement for shipping a docs within all
> subpackages. It's just dumb rpmlint warning about not having docs and that
> warning is fine to ignore. rpmlint output doesn't 100% match our packaging
> guidelines and best practices.
>
> What stand-alone subpackages need to have is a license file specified with
> %license (which they already have).
>
>
> I do have some other random comments here I noticed while going through the
> spec file:
>
>
> > Requires: gnome-user-docs
>
> Why is this hard dep necessary? It seems wrong from minimization point of
> view to drag in an unrelated docs package if one just wants to install the
> library.
It was so that the /usr/share/help sub-directories were created. I've tried to
fix that up
in the latest version. Let me know if you wanted it done some other way, I
couldn't actually find examples in the checked out packages.
> > %package ui-devel
> > Summary:Development files for libmalcontent-ui
> > License:LGPLv2+
> > Requires: %{name}-ui-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> > Requires: pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0)
>
> I don't think you need to manually specify 'Requires: pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0)'
> as it's normally automatically generated based on the .pc file. If that
> doesn't happen, it's probably a bug in the .pc file.
OK, removed.
>
> > Requires: gobject-introspection-devel
>
> Instead of this, please just use multiple directory ownership for the gir
> directories as we do in other gnome packages instead of hard-depending on
> gobject-introspection-devel.
Done.
>
> > %package ui-libs
> > Summary:Libraries for %{name}
> > License:LGPLv2+
> > Requires: gobject-introspection
>
> Same thing here, please just use multiple directory ownership for the gir
> directories.
>
>
> I see that you are specifying "License: LGPLv2+" in all subpackages. This is
> fine, but unnecessary: it's enough to just specify it for the main package
> and then all subpackages inheriy the license tag of the main packages.
OK.
> > %check
> > desktop-file-validate
> > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/org.freedesktop.MalcontentControl.desktop
>
> It should also have appdata validation here.
Done, but disabled for now:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/-/issues/23
> > %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
> > %ldconfig_scriptlets ui-libs
>
> These are not needed in current Fedora versions and can just go (they
> evaluate to nothing). We have ldconfig triggers in place that automatically
> rebuild the ldconfig cache.
Done.
> > %{_mandir}/man8/malcontent-client.8.gz
>
> Can you use malcontent-client.8* glob here? This works better for flatpak
> builds that don't currently have man page compression applied.
Sure.
Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50946663
-4 version copied to the same URL.
--
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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199
--- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember ---
I don't think there's any requirement for shipping a docs within all
subpackages. It's just dumb rpmlint warning about not having docs and that
warning is fine to ignore. rpmlint output doesn't 100% match our packaging
guidelines and best practices.
What stand-alone subpackages need to have is a license file specified with
%license (which they already have).
I do have some other random comments here I noticed while going through the
spec file:
> Requires: gnome-user-docs
Why is this hard dep necessary? It seems wrong from minimization point of view
to drag in an unrelated docs package if one just wants to install the library.
> %package ui-devel
> Summary:Development files for libmalcontent-ui
> License:LGPLv2+
> Requires: %{name}-ui-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0)
I don't think you need to manually specify 'Requires: pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0)' as
it's normally automatically generated based on the .pc file. If that doesn't
happen, it's probably a bug in the .pc file.
> Requires: gobject-introspection-devel
Instead of this, please just use multiple directory ownership for the gir
directories as we do in other gnome packages instead of hard-depending on
gobject-introspection-devel.
> %package ui-libs
> Summary:Libraries for %{name}
> License:LGPLv2+
> Requires: gobject-introspection
Same thing here, please just use multiple directory ownership for the gir
directories.
I see that you are specifying "License: LGPLv2+" in all subpackages. This is
fine, but unnecessary: it's enough to just specify it for the main package and
then all subpackages inheriy the license tag of the main packages.
> %check
> desktop-file-validate
> %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/org.freedesktop.MalcontentControl.desktop
It should also have appdata validation here.
> %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
> %ldconfig_scriptlets ui-libs
These are not needed in current Fedora versions and can just go (they evaluate
to nothing). We have ldconfig triggers in place that automatically rebuild the
ldconfig cache.
> %{_mandir}/man8/malcontent-client.8.gz
Can you use malcontent-client.8* glob here? This works better for flatpak
builds that don't currently have man page compression applied.
--
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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender --- > What does "stand-alone subpackages" actually mean? All those depend on > packages > from the same SRPM which contain the README, and if those are considered > "stand-alone" despite having deps on other RPMs from the same source, what's > considered "non stand-alone"? "Stand-alone subpackages" would be subpackages which can be installed completely independently of the rest of the subpackages in the SPEC file. However, I looked more closely at the SPEC file again and it seems it's rather the following: - malcontent-pam - malcontent-control - malcontent-tools - malcontent-ui-libs - malcontent-libs Out of these, malcontent-pam and malcontent-tools don't provide a %doc. -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #5 from Bastien Nocera --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #4) > > I've added a desktop-file-validate in %check, is that enough? > > Yup, that should be enough according to the packaging guidelines. > > > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/C, > > /usr/share/gir-1.0, /usr/share/polkit-1/actions, > > /usr/share/accountsservice, /usr/share/help/id, > > /usr/share/polkit-1/rules.d, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, > > /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/dbus-1, > > /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0 > > These directories still require proper ownership. Either you make the > subpackages which use them own them or add Requires lines for packages which > provide them. For instance, /usr/share/polkit-1 is provided by meson or > polkit, but I'd recommend polkit in this case. Check which directory is > provided by what with "dnf provides ". Will require: accountsservice-0.6.55-5 All the /usr/share/help/*/ directories should be owned by filesystem, because there's no way that gnome-user-docs will be able to own all the same dirs random packages could own, so it'll be filesystem's job to do that. I believe the rest is now fixed. > A couple of extra things picked up by rpmlint: > > malcontent-pam.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > malcontent-ui-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > malcontent-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > Since these are stand-alone subpackages, each needs its own %doc entry with > the README.md file. What does "stand-alone subpackages" actually mean? All those depend on packages from the same SRPM which contain the README, and if those are considered "stand-alone" despite having deps on other RPMs from the same source, what's considered "non stand-alone"? I haven't made any changes here. > > malcontent-ui-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package > > contains the pkg-config file and development headers for libmalcontent-ui. > > %description lines are 80 characters max. Either split it into multiple > lines or change it to something like "Contains the pkg-config file and > development headers for libmalcontent-ui." Done. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50755715 -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #4 from Andy Mender --- > I've added a desktop-file-validate in %check, is that enough? Yup, that should be enough according to the packaging guidelines. > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/C, > /usr/share/gir-1.0, /usr/share/polkit-1/actions, > /usr/share/accountsservice, /usr/share/help/id, > /usr/share/polkit-1/rules.d, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, > /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/dbus-1, > /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0 These directories still require proper ownership. Either you make the subpackages which use them own them or add Requires lines for packages which provide them. For instance, /usr/share/polkit-1 is provided by meson or polkit, but I'd recommend polkit in this case. Check which directory is provided by what with "dnf provides ". A couple of extra things picked up by rpmlint: > malcontent-pam.x86_64: W: no-documentation > malcontent-ui-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > malcontent-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Since these are stand-alone subpackages, each needs its own %doc entry with the README.md file. > malcontent-ui-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package > contains the pkg-config file and development headers for libmalcontent-ui. %description lines are 80 characters max. Either split it into multiple lines or change it to something like "Contains the pkg-config file and development headers for libmalcontent-ui." -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199
--- Comment #3 from Bastien Nocera ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
> > URL:https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/
> > Source0:
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/-/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
>
> You can replace the URL part in Source0 with %{url} to make it a little
> shorter and avoid duplication.
Sure.
> > %package ui-devel
> > Summary:Development files for libmalcontent-ui
> > License:LGPLv2+
> > Requires: %{name}-ui-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> > Requires: gtk3-devel
>
> gtk3 provides a pkgconfig file so you can use the "pkgconfig(gtk3)" syntax
> in the last line.
Done.
> I see the project provides a README.md. Could you attach it to all of the
> stand-alone packages?
OK.
> Main review below:
> 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.
> Review: Yes, a desktop file is listed and should use either of the above.
> %files control
> %license COPYING
> %{_bindir}/malcontent-control
> %{_datadir}/applications/org.freedesktop.MalcontentControl.desktop
I've added a desktop-file-validate in %check, is that enough?
v2 is in the same place at:
https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/malcontent/
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50316270
--
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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender ---
> URL:https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/
> Source0:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/-/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
You can replace the URL part in Source0 with %{url} to make it a little shorter
and avoid duplication.
> %package ui-devel
> Summary:Development files for libmalcontent-ui
> License:LGPLv2+
> Requires: %{name}-ui-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: gtk3-devel
gtk3 provides a pkgconfig file so you can use the "pkgconfig(gtk3)" syntax in
the last line.
I see the project provides a README.md. Could you attach it to all of the
stand-alone packages?
Main review below:
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.
Review: Yes, a desktop file is listed and should use either of the above.
%files control
%license COPYING
%{_bindir}/malcontent-control
%{_datadir}/applications/org.freedesktop.MalcontentControl.desktop
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Review: SO is needed internally by the PAM module. That's okay.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
Review: Tested by submitter in Koji.
[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 GNU
General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or
later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 109 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/malcontent/malcontent/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/dbus-1,
/usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/pl,
/usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0,
/usr/share/accountsservice, /usr/share/gir-1.0,
/usr/share/polkit-1/actions, /usr/share/polkit-1/rules.d,
/usr/share/help/id, /usr/share/help/uk
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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.
[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 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #1 from Bastien Nocera --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50254466 -- 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
