Iago Rubio <iago(a)iagorubio.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from Iago Rubio <iago(a)iagorubio.com> ---
I am not a packager so I can't approve or sponsor you. Just doing the review.
Please re-check each point I make and if necesary ask for another review on
rpmlint - no complains
builds in mock
builds in Copr
- Package does not contain kernel modules.
- Package contains no static executables.
- Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
! License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed
Debuginfo does not install license files, nor require the main package that
does install license.
- Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
- %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Only defines
gtk_doc=true and install_test=true.
- Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception
- Changelog in prescribed format
- Sources contain only permissible code or content
- Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application - not a GUI
- Development files must be in a -devel package
- The spec file handles locales properly.
- Package consistently uses macros
- Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
(1) Package does not generate any conflict.
- Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
- If the package is a rename of another package ... - is not a rename.
? Requires correct, justified where necessary. vapigen required and not used on
any build section. Is this required implicitly?
- spec file is legible and written in American English
- Package contains systemd file(s) if in need - no systemd file needed.
- Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
- Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
- Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(1) Current Gnome and Rawhide's Gnome uses GTK3 yet you are providing the GTK4
version. I think the name of the package should reflect it's the GTK4 version,
and/or ship the GTK3 version to be used in current Gnome. I haven't found on
guidelines how to face this issue, but it may conflict with a GTK3 build.
In the SHOULD side: no tests checked, no %check section.
There is a package maintaner for gtksourceview, that currently maintains the
I am sure you may contact him and ask him for the heads-up/review on this
package. That may help to get a good review.
He is @pwalter . I guess you took his .spec as an starting point as they are
practically identical, but some meson libs and the initial changelog.
As I said, take this review with a pinch of salt and wait for an oficial
review, unless you check out my findings on the Guidelines and agree with them.
Hope this helps.
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.