https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352

--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- === Updated package ===

Scratch build:

Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23924905

Urls:

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots-0.0.1-0.2.201...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352

Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |quantum.analyst@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Iwicki is correct about those two points.

Not sure why you added explicit install to %_pkgdocdir; you could just list the relative paths in %doc directly. Is it to be able to delete .*ignore* and meson.build from the installed version?

Need to add BuildRequires on gcc and/or g++: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B

A couple files are not MIT; they are not installed, but I think some transformation of them is. Not exactly sure what the legal meaning of that is, or if you need to mention that in the license field.

It would be nice if the description said a bit more than the summary.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: wlroots-debugsource : See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

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

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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.

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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "NTP (legal disclaimer)", "Unknown or generated". 197 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/elliott/rpmbuild/review/1529352-wlroots/licensecheck.txt [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. [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]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 348160 bytes in 18 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: 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]: 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: [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 wlroots- debuginfo , wlroots-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: 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. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: wlroots-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm wlroots-devel-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm wlroots-debuginfo-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm wlroots-debugsource-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm wlroots-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.src.rpm wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wlroots-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib wlroots-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation wlroots.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged wlroots.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wlroots.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged wlroots.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wlroots-debuginfo-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.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 wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wlroots-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib wlroots-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Requires -------- wlroots (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libEGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLESv2.so.2()(64bit) libX11-xcb.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap.so.2()(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) libgbm.so.1()(64bit) libinput.so.10()(64bit) libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_0.12.0)(64bit) libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_0.21.0)(64bit) libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_1.2)(64bit) libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_1.3)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-egl.so.1()(64bit) libwayland-server.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-icccm.so.4()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

wlroots-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libinput-devel(x86-64) libwlroots.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-devel(x86-64) libxkbcommon-devel(x86-64) mesa-libEGL-devel(x86-64) pixman-devel(x86-64) systemd-devel(x86-64) wayland-devel(x86-64) wlroots(x86-64) xcb-util-wm-devel(x86-64)

wlroots-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

wlroots-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- wlroots: libwlroots.so.0()(64bit) wlroots wlroots(x86-64)

wlroots-devel: pkgconfig(wlroots) wlroots-devel wlroots-devel(x86-64)

wlroots-debugsource: wlroots-debugsource wlroots-debugsource(x86-64)

wlroots-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wlroots-debuginfo wlroots-debuginfo(x86-64)

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/archive/eeb7cd8ed74d17b04623e453826c660239... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a5a7b6ccb6fd6666809a1b32c867d05e8c1e7ad933bab3ef1260b1f4691712b7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5a7b6ccb6fd6666809a1b32c867d05e8c1e7ad933bab3ef1260b1f4691712b7

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1529352 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352

--- Comment #5 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #4)

Iwicki is correct about those two points.

Yes, of course… But his suggestions are more a matter of taste, then 'hard-coded' rules.

Not sure why you added explicit install to %_pkgdocdir; you could just list the relative paths in %doc directly. Is it to be able to delete .*ignore* and meson.build from the installed version?

I did that, so all built (sub-)packages share the same dir for documentation; if you simply add the relative paths using %%doc, every %package will get a seperate dir laying inside of %%{_defaultdocdir}.

Need to add BuildRequires on gcc and/or g++: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B

Fixed.

A couple files are not MIT; they are not installed, but I think some transformation of them is. Not exactly sure what the legal meaning of that is, or if you need to mention that in the license field.

I added some clarification comment to the spec file.

It would be nice if the description said a bit more than the summary.

Well, at some day in the future, when upstream writes a better one…

Package Review

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "NTP (legal disclaimer)", "Unknown or generated". 197 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/elliott/rpmbuild/review/1529352-wlroots/licensecheck.txt

See added clarification in the spec file.

***

=== Updated package ===

Scratch build:

Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23955196

Urls:

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots-0.0.1-0.4.201...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352

Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g | |mail.com)

--- Comment #7 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- I've made all reasonable changes to package and gave some clarification to other things in question. Could you please approve the package and set the review flag to '+', bug status to 'POST'?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352

Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g | |mail.com) |

--- Comment #8 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- APPROVED.