[Bug 1940937] New: Review Request: rpi-imager - Graphical
user-interface to write disk images and format SD cards
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1940937
Bug ID: 1940937
Summary: Review Request: rpi-imager - Graphical user-interface
to write disk images and format SD cards
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: kees.dejong+dev(a)neobits.nl
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/keesdejong/public_git/rpmbuild.git/plain/SP...
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/keesdejong/public_git/rpmbuild.git/plain/SR...
Description: Graphical user-interface to write disk images and format SD cards
Fedora Account System Username: keesdejong
---
Below is my own package-review.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3 Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "curl License",
"*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License
2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public
License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)
GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated file]", "FSF
Unlimited License [generated file]", "zlib/libpng license", "ISC
License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Public domain",
"BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Public domain",
"BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License [generated file]", "GNU
General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License",
"GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF
Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License [generated file]",
"GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 4-clause "Original"
or "Old" License", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost
Software License 1.0", "NTP License", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng
license". 1465 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/lib/mock/fedora-33-x86_64/result/review-rpi-
imager/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps
[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.
[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.
[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 10240 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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
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]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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: rpi-imager-1.6-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
rpi-imager-debuginfo-1.6-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
rpi-imager-debugsource-1.6-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
rpi-imager-1.6-1.fc35.src.rpm
rpi-imager.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpi-imager
rpi-imager.src: W: strange-permission rpi-imager-1.6.tar.gz 640
rpi-imager.src: W: strange-permission rpi-imager.spec 640
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: rpi-imager-debuginfo-1.6-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rpi-imager.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpi-imager
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/raspberrypi/rpi-imager/archive/v1.6/rpi-imager.tar.gz#...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
811f9c261f82f75eefb9129570c47ff6653c1e9af08d9ed0b877261b4d184685
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
811f9c261f82f75eefb9129570c47ff6653c1e9af08d9ed0b877261b4d184685
Requires
--------
rpi-imager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libarchive.so.13()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
libcurl.so.4()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
udisks2
rpi-imager-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rpi-imager-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
rpi-imager:
application()
application(rpi-imager.desktop)
metainfo()
metainfo(rpi-imager.metainfo.xml)
rpi-imager
rpi-imager(x86-64)
rpi-imager-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
rpi-imager-debuginfo
rpi-imager-debuginfo(x86-64)
rpi-imager-debugsource:
rpi-imager-debugsource
rpi-imager-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rpi-imager
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, Java, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity,
Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
3 years
[Bug 1946547] New: Review Request: nwg-panel - GTK3-based panel for
sway window manager
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946547
Bug ID: 1946547
Summary: Review Request: nwg-panel - GTK3-based panel for sway
window manager
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/nwg-panel.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/nwg-panel-0.2.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
Description:
I have been using sway since 2019 and find it the most comfortable working
environment, but... Have you ever missed all the graphical bells and whistles
in your panel, we used to have in tint2? It happens to me. That's why I
decided to try to code a GTK-based panel, including best features from my two
favourites: Waybar and tint2. Many thanks to Developers and Contributors of
the both projects!
There are 8 modules available at the moment, and I don't plan on many more.
Basis system controls are available in the Controls module, and whatever else
you may need, there's an executor for that.
Fedora Account System Username: atim
--
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
3 years