https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Jan Pokorný <jpokorny(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny(a)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.... :
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