[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-03-01 20:58:51 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 --- Comment #8 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rttr -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- Sure, done one day ago https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32359 I will wait next week, probably some vacation. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 --- Comment #6 from Sergio Basto --- by Step 7 of documentation https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors you need do: fedpkg request-repo rttr 1932616 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 Sergio Basto changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Sergio Basto --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #4) > But it's possible for a library only binary > package to use lib prefix (and libfoo-devel for the related -devel package). it is possible but is the Debian convention , not the "RedHat" or Fedora convention , and I prefer the RedHat / fedora one . > rpm -qi librttr will give you hint about which source package this librtt > binary package was created from. IMHO , is just less intuitive . > I've found curl package that already follow this convention. (using libcurl > and libcurl-devel). So I don't think this break assumption. Looking for curl.spec I see many things that would change . Package APPROVED -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- Thanks for spotting this issue. I've fixed locally. The packaging guideline enforces the name of the source package to be the same as the archive name. But it's possible for a library only binary package to use lib prefix (and libfoo-devel for the related -devel package). rpm -qi librttr will give you hint about which source package this librtt binary package was created from. I've found curl package that already follow this convention. (using libcurl and libcurl-devel). So I don't think this break assumption. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616
--- Comment #3 from Sergio Basto ---
Created attachment 1759462
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1759462=edit
rttr.spec.patch
Hi,
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: License file license_8md.html is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
/usr/share/doc/rttr-doc/rttr-0-9-6/license_8md.html
/usr/share/doc/rttr-doc/rttr-0-9-6/license_page.html
these files are fine
so no issues
but
please fix doc file permissions :
-find __doc -type f -exec chmod 0640 {} ';'
+find __doc -type f -exec chmod 0644 {} ';'
Also notice the name convention is not the standard on Fedora packages should
be rttr-libs and rttr-devel .
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- Spec URL: https://dl.kwizart.net/review/rttr.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.kwizart.net/review/rttr-0.9.6-3.fc33.src.rpm Description: Run Time Type Reflection Fedora Account System Username: kwizart Changelog: - Drop main package - Split docs Thanks for the 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616
--- Comment #1 from Sergio Basto ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: License file license_8md.html is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 4608000 bytes in 255 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat
License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 71 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sergio/fedora-
scm/1932616-rttr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/rttr
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/rttr
[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]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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:
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 Sergio Basto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ser...@serjux.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ser...@serjux.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
