https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Jan Pokorný <jpoko...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Jan Pokorný <jpoko...@redhat.com> ---
> 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]: 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: "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat License", "Unknown or
> generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 74 files have unknown license.
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
see [comment 0], the libraries are built as static and included directly
in resulting rofi binary. They are mentioned explicitly:
# https://github.com/sardemff7/libgwater
Provides: bundled(libgwater)
# https://github.com/sardemff7/libnkutils
Provides: bundled(libnkutils)
Note that versions are practically (in a predictable way that would help
in repoqueries) indeterminable ([comment 8]).
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
Rofi is a GUI application, however desktop file doesn't appear to be
a necessity, given the program meant to run for the whole GUI sessions
and, quite on the contrary, to deal with desktop files of other programs.
> [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).
For the sake of completeness, I'd suggest:
s#/usr/bin/${interpreter}#%{_bindir}/${interpreter}#
but is not a blocker here (note that possibly python* dealing in the same
location in the spec file is merely an overapproximation, so no crossing
into Python specific guidelines takes place, I'd suggest dropping those
mentions, actually).
> [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.
> [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
> [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 must own all directories that it creates.
> [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:
> [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Rather a false positive raised, main building command is fine -> [x]
> [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rofi-
> devel , rofi-devel-doc , rofi-themes , rofi-debuginfo , rofi-
> debugsource
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [-]: 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.
> [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
> [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 debuginfo package(s).
> Note: No rpmlint messages.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
> Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
> is arched.
>
>
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: rofi-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> rofi-devel-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> rofi-devel-doc-1.5.1-5.fc30.noarch.rpm
> rofi-themes-1.5.1-5.fc30.noarch.rpm
> rofi-debuginfo-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> rofi-debugsource-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> rofi-1.5.1-5.fc30.src.rpm
> rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen
> rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu,
> madmen
> rofi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> rofi-themes.noarch: W: no-documentation
> rofi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen
> rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu,
> madmen
> rofi.src:43: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libgwater)
> rofi.src:45: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libnkutils)
see above
> 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (debuginfo)
> -------------------
> Checking: rofi-debuginfo-1.5.1-5.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
> rofi-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
> service not known>
> rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen
> rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmenu -> menu, d menu,
> madmen
> rofi.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi
> <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
> rofi-devel-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
> service not known>
> rofi-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi
> <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
> rofi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> rofi-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
> service not known>
> rofi-themes.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi
> <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
> rofi-themes.noarch: W: no-documentation
> 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Bogus complaints about opening URLs, perhaps mock container without
net access.
>
>
>
>
> Requires
> --------
> rofi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>
> rofi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> /usr/bin/bash
> libc.so.6()(64bit)
> libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
> libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
> libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
> libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
> librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit)
> libstartup-notification-1.so.0()(64bit)
> libxcb-ewmh.so.2()(64bit)
> libxcb-icccm.so.4()(64bit)
> libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit)
> libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit)
> libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit)
> libxcb-xkb.so.1()(64bit)
> libxcb-xrm.so.0()(64bit)
> libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
> libxkbcommon-x11.so.0()(64bit)
> libxkbcommon-x11.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
> libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit)
> libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
> libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.7.0)(64bit)
> rofi-themes
> rtld(GNU_HASH)
>
> rofi-devel-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>
> rofi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> /usr/bin/pkg-config
> pkgconfig
> pkgconfig(cairo)
> pkgconfig(glib-2.0)
> pkgconfig(gmodule-2.0)
> rofi
>
> rofi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>
> rofi-themes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>
>
>
> Provides
> --------
> rofi-debuginfo:
> debuginfo(build-id)
> rofi-debuginfo
> rofi-debuginfo(x86-64)
>
> rofi:
> bundled(libgwater)
> bundled(libnkutils)
> rofi
> rofi(x86-64)
>
> rofi-devel-doc:
> rofi-devel-doc
>
> rofi-devel:
> pkgconfig(rofi)
> rofi-devel
> rofi-devel(x86-64)
>
> rofi-debugsource:
> rofi-debugsource
> rofi-debugsource(x86-64)
>
> rofi-themes:
> rofi-themes
>
>
>
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi/releases/download/1.5.1/rofi-1.5.1.tar.gz
> :
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
> e99817668317979a5cf9a931d28cbb54291e46f3b753b03a9368fc31dc1f83b5
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> e99817668317979a5cf9a931d28cbb54291e46f3b753b03a9368fc31dc1f83b5
>
>
> Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn rofi-1.5.1-5.fc28.src.rpm
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
> Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell,
> R, PHP
> Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
The concern about the in-spec interpreter mangling loop is not a blocker
per se though would be good to tackle it eventually.
That being said, setting 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
