https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(james.hogarth@gma |
|il.com) |
--- Comment #107 from James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated".
52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/755510-gnome-shell-extension-system-
monitor-applet/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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:
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-0.1.20171005git61b0a60.fc28.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet <urlopen
error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gnome-shell
Provides
--------
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet:
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/archive/61b0a60d74776455785ddb7a95851c2381961f6c/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-0.0.1-61b0a60.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ae0ee48f863bf2d981fbf2e1d4497422678b565ec3c97b47b8e6331d312eae6c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ae0ee48f863bf2d981fbf2e1d4497422678b565ec3c97b47b8e6331d312eae6c
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 755510
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
=== Summary ===
A few style things that are non-blockers but I'd suggest taking a look over:
1) We no longer use the group field in spec files, this SHOULD be removed:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
2) I know there's been a bit of uh questionable and varied version naming
with this package over the years but there but it's sensible to have at least
some link between the rpm version and the upstream version for users to
understand better what they have installed. It helps that you have the git
commit and date, but including the version number that upstream uses as the
release tag is sensible and preferable.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning
To make the release more readable as well if you are setting a shortcommit
(as indeed you are) in a %global for a snapshot build there's no need to
condition whether it exists in the release field ... it obviously exists as you
just set it and it makes it harder to read.
If you want to do snapshot builds that's fine... but I suggest the version
should be the most recent tag upstream and then follow the versioning
guidelines for the git tag in the release.
3) Fedora 23 is no longer supported and you can't build for it in koji ...
strip out the "if fedora is 23" conditionals ... they can have no effect now
and just serve to make it messier.
As I said these are non-blockers and reflect my personal view of trying to make
the spec a bit tidier and convey the state of the package to users a bit more
clearly, but as the maintainer for this it's your call.
Package is APPROVED and you've been sponsored into the packager group.
Congratulations and welcome :)
The steps to request the repo for your package and building it can be found
here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
--
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
