Matthew Krupcale <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(

--- Comment #3 from Matthew Krupcale <> ---
A couple minor things I spotted after now building -gtk4 packages in rawhide
and a bit more discussion on some points from the last review, and then this
should be ready.

> No, libnma doesn't obsolete libnma-gtk

Okay, I suppose the network-manager-applet spec file libnm-gtk-devel package
description was incorrect then.

> I'll do that once the network-manager-applet package is updated and libnm-gtk 
> is actually dropped.

It looks like libnm-gtk{,devel} was last built in F28, though. So is this not
already essentially dropped?

> No, it's the presence of %files section or lack thereof that decides whether 
> a binary package is built. That is so by design.

I only meant that the subpackages should not be defined in addition to the
%files section being excluded. This was mainly just so it was clear for the
reader only looking at the %package's what was built when, consistent with the
%files. It's not a requirement as far as I can tell but only a suggestion.

> Yes. This needs to get fixed upstream first: 

I believe you should go ahead and update the License: field and comment in the
spec file (either around the License: field or in %files) about the shared/
license without having the COPYING.LGPL file included yet. In the next release
you can include the file (assuming it's accepted upstream), but the license
should still be correctly labeled.

> Yeah, it could be done, but it seems rather unnecessary to me at this point.

I think it is good practice for three reasons:
  1. Being noarch, the package can be built and installed anywhere
  2. Reduces the repository size since the docs subpackages are not duplicated
for each arch
  3. Potentially reduces the download and install size for the user if docs are

I don't believe this is a requirement, but I do think it's recommended,
considering the size (>1 MB) of the documentation here.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

- mobile-broadband-provider-info only Required by -gtk4 but appears to be used
by libnma as well
- Spelling error in -gtk4-devel Summary: "exerimental" -> "experimental"
- License should be "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" due to contents in shared/
  Should install COPYING.LGPLv2.1.
  This should be documented in the spec file as well.
- -gtk4 and -gtk4-devel subpackages should only be defined when
  %if %{with libnma_gtk4}
- Consider moving %{_datadir}/gtk-doc files to noarch -devel-doc subpackage

===== MUST items =====

[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[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.

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 =====

[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1495040 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

libnma-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

libnma-gtk4-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exerimental ->
experimental, detrimental, experimenter
libnma-gtk4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

libnma-gtk4  (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gtk4(x86-64) >= 3.96.0
    mobile-broadband-provider-info >= 0.20090602

libnma-gtk4  (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    NetworkManager-libnm-devel >= 1:1.8.0
    libnma-gtk4(x86-64) = 1.8.26-2.fc32

    libnma-gtk4 = 1.8.26-2.fc32
    libnma-gtk4(x86-64) = 1.8.26-2.fc32

    libnma-gtk4-devel = 1.8.26-2.fc32
    libnma-gtk4-devel(x86-64) = 1.8.26-2.fc32
    pkgconfig(libnma-gtk4) = 1.8.26

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 --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:

Reply via email to