https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2427087

Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[email protected]    |[email protected]
                 CC|                            |[email protected]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> ---
Initial review pass:

1. Weird rpm macros?

> %bcond_without check
> %global cargo_install_lib 0
> %global _cargo_generate_buildrequires 0

Not sure why / how you added these. The first one should be either `%bcond
check 1` or dropped.
The second one can be dropped if you replace `%cargo_install` with one manual
`install` command.
The third one looks very strange.

see also
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_non_crate_rust_project

2. The License tag is incomplete.

It currently only refers to "phrog" itself. You also need to take into account
statically linked Rust dependencies (the summary is printed by
`%cargo_license_summary` during the build, you should find it in the
"build.log" file after a build (between "START LICENSE SUMMARY" and "END
LICENSE SUMMARY").

3. Do not use double-underscore-prefixed RPM macros.

These are implementation details and should not be used in spec files.
In this case, just use plain "install" instead of "%{__install}".

4. I would recommend to use "install ... target/rpm/phrog -t ..." instead of
%cargo_install.

In a simple case like this one, the latest version of the Packaging Guidelines
recommend against using `%cargo_install` in favor of just installing the built
executables yourself.

see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_non_crate_rust_project

5. Create files / folder structure necessary for tests in %check.

Setting up the test environment should happen in %check. This way it cannot
influence the built package, since the files are collected *before* %check is
run.

6. Missing verification of the .desktop files.

".desktop" files MUST be validated with "desktop-file-validate" (from
desktop-file-utils).

see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage

7. Differentiate between folders and files in the %files list, and make sure
all "intermediate" folders are accounted for.

Right now ownership of folders / files is not entirely clear, and incomplete.

For example, the /etc/phrog directory is "unowned" in the current setup.
Looks like (taking "%{_sysconfdir}/phrog/autostart" as an example) you would
need to do something like:

%dir %{_sysconfdir}/phrog
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/phrog/autostart

(assuming /etc/phrog/autostart is currently an empty directory)

If it has contents (why does the package install default config files in /etc
instead of /usr?), then you'd need to add one more line:

%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/phrog/autostart/*

8. Missing systemd scriptlets for the user session service.

Both system and user session service units need scriptlets.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2427087

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202427087%23c2

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to