[Bug 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - The release nu;ber is missing in the changelog entry: * Thu Jun 17 2021 kvlad - 1.0.2-1 Package is approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import, You still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- 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 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190 --- Comment #5 from vladimir --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3) > Use make -O -j1 but add a comment explaining parallel build aren't working. > > I can't access https://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SPECS/clipnotify.spec anymore. > Pleqse send the updqted spec file somewhere I can review it. Hi! All done. No need to use make -O -j1, it's just start working after few system updates. New spec file is available. Thank you! -- 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 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com Flags|needinfo?(package-review@li | |sts.fedoraproject.org) | --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi --- No need to needinfo the entire package-review list here. :) clearing... -- 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 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- Use make -O -j1 but add a comment explaining parallel build aren't working. I can't access https://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SPECS/clipnotify.spec anymore. Pleqse send the updqted spec file somewhere I can review it. -- 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 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190
vladimir changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(package-review@li
||sts.fedoraproject.org)
--- Comment #2 from vladimir ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
> - The description should be wrapped to stay below 80 characters per line:
>
> %description
> clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits
> until a new selection is available and then exits.
>
> - make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build
>
> - This is not ok:
>
> %global debug_package %{nil}
>
> You should find out why a debug package is not generated. Here you should
> set %set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:
>
> %build
> %set_build_flags
> %make_build
>
> - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and version-release
> number:
>
> %changelog
> * Thu May 06 2021 kvlad - 1.0.2-1
> - First clipnotify package
>
> - Use a more explicit name for your archive:
>
> Source0:
> https://github.com/cdown/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
>
>
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>
> = 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
>
> 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: "*No copyright* the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
> have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/bob/packaging/review/clipnotify/review-
> clipnotify/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: 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.
> [-]: 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.
> [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.
> [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [!]: 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]: 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 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 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.
>
needinfo requested: [Bug 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
vladimir has asked Package Review
for needinfo:
Bug 1958190: Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190
--- Comment #2 from vladimir ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
> - The description should be wrapped to stay below 80 characters per line:
>
> %description
> clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits
> until a new selection is available and then exits.
>
> - make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build
>
> - This is not ok:
>
> %global debug_package %{nil}
>
> You should find out why a debug package is not generated. Here you should
> set %set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:
>
> %build
> %set_build_flags
> %make_build
>
> - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and version-release
> number:
>
> %changelog
> * Thu May 06 2021 kvlad - 1.0.2-1
> - First clipnotify package
>
> - Use a more explicit name for your archive:
>
> Source0:
> https://github.com/cdown/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
>
>
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>
> = 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
>
> 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: "*No copyright* the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
> have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/bob/packaging/review/clipnotify/review-
> clipnotify/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: 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.
> [-]: 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.
> [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.
> [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [!]: 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]: 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 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 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]:
[Bug 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- The description should be wrapped to stay below 80 characters per line:
%description
clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits
until a new selection is available and then exits.
- make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build
- This is not ok:
%global debug_package %{nil}
You should find out why a debug package is not generated. Here you should set
%set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:
%build
%set_build_flags
%make_build
- The changelog entry must contain your name, email and version-release
number:
%changelog
* Thu May 06 2021 kvlad - 1.0.2-1
- First clipnotify package
- Use a more explicit name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/cdown/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "*No copyright* the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/clipnotify/review-
clipnotify/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: 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]: 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 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
[Bug 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190 vladimir changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190 vladimir changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: http://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SPECS/clipnotify.spec SRPM URL: http://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection is available and then exits. It was primarily designed for clipmenu, to avoid polling for new selections. Fedora Account System Username: v.a.kim Hi! Recently i switched to Fedora distro and found, that the program is missing in repo. It's in rdeps of clipmenu, which i will submit after that ticket. It's my first package. My experience with RPM powered distros is very low, as well with SystemD, didn't find the way to make .spec better. But it works on Fedora 34 with 'systemctl --user start clipmenu'. This package is needed as dependency for clipmenu: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958193 Koji builds are here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67417070 -- 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 1958190] Review Request: clipnotify - Clipboard management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958190 vladimir changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: http://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SPECS/clipnotify.spec SRPM URL: http://startserv.sh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/clipnotify-1.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: clipnotify is a simple program that, using the XFIXES extension to X11, waits until a new selection is available and then exits. It was primarily designed for clipmenu, to avoid polling for new selections. Fedora Account System Username: v.a.kim Hi! Recently i switched to Fedora distro and found, that the program is missing in repo. It's in rdeps of clipmenu, which i will submit after that ticket. It's my first package. My experience with RPM powered distros is very low, as well with SystemD, didn't find the way to make .spec better. But it works on Fedora 34 with 'systemctl --user start clipmenu'. Koji builds are here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67417070 -- 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
