https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Bug ID: 2243131 Summary: Review Request: metadata-cleaner - Python GTK application to view and clean metadata in files, using mat2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.cordatus@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/metadata-cleaner.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/metadata-cleaner-2.5.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Metadata within a file can tell a lot about you. Cameras record data about when and where a picture was taken and which camera was used. Office applications automatically add author and company information to documents and spreadsheets. This is sensitive information and you may not want to disclose it. This tool allows you to view metadata in your files and to get rid of it, as much as possible. Under the hood, it relies on mat2 to parse and remove the metadata.
Fedora Account System Username: atim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2243093 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093 [Bug 2243093] Review Request: mat2 - Metadata removal tool, supporting a wide range of commonly used file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #1 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- Quick fixes:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1993477 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1993477&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6514825 to 6516536
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|POST |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131 Bug 2243131 depends on bug 2243093, which changed state.
Bug 2243093 Summary: Review Request: mat2 - Metadata removal tool, supporting a wide range of commonly used file formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Fedora review warnings: [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/fy, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/nb_NO, /usr/share/help/ur [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/tr, /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/eu, /usr/share/help/hu, /usr/share/help/de, /usr/share/help/fy, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/pt, /usr/share/help/zh_CN, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/id, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/ca, /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/help/ru, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/sr, /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/lt, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/help/zh_TW, /usr/share/help/fi, /usr/share/help/ro, /usr/share/help/nl, /usr/share/help/ja, /usr/share/help/oc, /usr/share/help/hr, /usr/share/help/gl, /usr/share/help/cs, /usr/share/help/eo, /usr/share/help/it, /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/share/help/ko, /usr/share/help/nb_NO, /usr/share/help/ur
Icon files have creative commons licenses The figure files in translations also seem to each have a license file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #4 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39... https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2001141 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2001141&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6516536 to 6686017
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6686017 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0-or-later and CC-BY-SA-4.0 and CC0-1.0'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- GPL-3.0-or-later and CC-BY-SA-4.0 and CC0-1.0 should be GPL-3.0-or-later AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND CC0-1.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #8 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39... https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2003747 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2003747&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6686017 to 6741016
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6741016 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Warnings from fedora-review:
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/fy, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/help/ur, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/nb_NO [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/pt, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/zh_TW, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/ru, /usr/share/help/gl, /usr/share/help/ja, /usr/share/help/hu, /usr/share/help/ur, /usr/share/help/oc, /usr/share/help/ro, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/id, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/it, /usr/share/help/eu, /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/lt, /usr/share/help/zh_CN, /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/hr, /usr/share/help/fi, /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/share/help/de, /usr/share/help/nl, /usr/share/help/fy, /usr/share/help/eo, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/ca, /usr/share/help/sr, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/ko, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/nb_NO, /usr/share/help/cs, /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/help/tr
Maybe these should be in /usr/share/metadata-cleaner/help ?
Perhaps help documentation should be a separate noarch package to prevent the warning:
metadata-cleaner.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 83%
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #12 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #11)
Maybe these should be in /usr/share/metadata-cleaner/help ?
IMO this is wrong place for Gnome apps help files since the all other one gnome packages using /usr/share/help path.
Perhaps help documentation should be a separate noarch package to prevent the warning:
metadata-cleaner.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 83%
Good idea. I only figured out how to put both langpacks and docs files in separate sub-package and keep canonical "%find_lang %{appid} --with-gnome" macros in same time. We can keep like that or maybe we could try to figure out how to put only Docs in separate sub-package.
---
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39... https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2009530 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2009530&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6741016 to 6926738
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6926738 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #15 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- Ping? 4 month later...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #16 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the reminder. Will get to it later today.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #17 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 and/or GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0 and/or GNU General Public License v3.0 or later and/or SIL Open Font License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open Font License 1.1 with Reserved Font Name", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0". 257 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2243131-metadata-cleaner/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/ko, /usr/share/help/nb_NO, /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/pt, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/help/zh_TW, /usr/share/help/eu, /usr/share/glib-2.0, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/help/ro, /usr/share/help/lt, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/nl, /usr/share/help/de, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/gl, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/ru, /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/id, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/tr, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/help/ca, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps, /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/fy, /usr/share/help/ja, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/hu, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/help/oc, /usr/share/help/hr, /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic, /usr/share/help/cs, /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/it, /usr/share/help/zh_CN, /usr/share/help/sr, /usr/share/help/ur, /usr/share/help/fi, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/eo [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/ko, /usr/share/help/nb_NO, /usr/share/help/ca, /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/help/fy, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/pt, /usr/share/help/zh_TW, /usr/share/help/ja, /usr/share/help/eu, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/help/az, /usr/share/help/hu, /usr/share/help/ro, /usr/share/help/lt, /usr/share/help/bn, /usr/share/help/nl, /usr/share/help/de, /usr/share/help/oc, /usr/share/help/hr, /usr/share/help/nn, /usr/share/help/gl, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/cs, /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/it, /usr/share/help/zh_CN, /usr/share/help/ta, /usr/share/help/ru, /usr/share/help/sr, /usr/share/help/ur, /usr/share/help/fi, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/id, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/tr, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/eo [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 18134 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: metadata-cleaner-2.5.4-0.fc41.noarch.rpm metadata-cleaner-langpacks-2.5.4-0.fc41.noarch.rpm metadata-cleaner-2.5.4-0.fc41.src.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpth710ihd')] checks: 32, packages: 3
metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 91% metadata-cleaner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metadata-cleaner metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 250257 metadata-cleaner.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/metadata-cleaner/src/metadatacleaner/ui/__init__.py /usr/share/metadata-cleaner/src/metadatacleaner/__init__.py:/usr/share/metadata-cleaner/src/metadatacleaner/modules/__init__.py metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png:/usr/share/help/da/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png:/usr/share/help/nb_NO/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png:/usr/share/help/nn/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png:/usr/share/help/da/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png:/usr/share/help/nb_NO/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png:/usr/share/help/nn/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/ar/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/az/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/bn/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/ca/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:(and 34 more) metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/nb_NO/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png /usr/share/help/da/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/pt_BR/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png /usr/share/help/gl/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png:/usr/share/help/pt/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/pt_BR/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png /usr/share/help/pt/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/pt_BR/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png /usr/share/help/pt/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png === 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s ==
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2
metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 91% metadata-cleaner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metadata-cleaner metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 250257 metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png:/usr/share/help/da/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png:/usr/share/help/nb_NO/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png:/usr/share/help/nn/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-files-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png:/usr/share/help/da/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png:/usr/share/help/nb_NO/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png:/usr/share/help/nn/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/ar/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/az/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/bn/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:/usr/share/help/ca/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/icon.svg:(and 34 more) metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/zh_TW/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png /usr/share/help/C/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/nb_NO/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png /usr/share/help/da/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/pt_BR/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png /usr/share/help/gl/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png:/usr/share/help/pt/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/clean-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/pt_BR/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png /usr/share/help/pt/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/add-folders-button.png metadata-cleaner-langpacks.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/help/pt_BR/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png /usr/share/help/pt/fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner/figures/metadata-example.png metadata-cleaner.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/metadata-cleaner/src/metadatacleaner/ui/__init__.py /usr/share/metadata-cleaner/src/metadatacleaner/__init__.py:/usr/share/metadata-cleaner/src/metadatacleaner/modules/__init__.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/rmnvgr/metadata-cleaner/-/archive/v2.5.4/metadata-cleaner... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 672151f381863233de83d8ae3a21b7329a4c5299741ed0694c35b4900180f81d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 672151f381863233de83d8ae3a21b7329a4c5299741ed0694c35b4900180f81d
Requires -------- metadata-cleaner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 dbus-common gtk4 libadwaita mat2
metadata-cleaner-langpacks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): metadata-cleaner
Provides -------- metadata-cleaner: application() application(fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner.desktop) metadata-cleaner metainfo() metainfo(fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner.metainfo.xml)
metadata-cleaner-langpacks: metadata-cleaner-langpacks
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2243131 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment: a) Still get directory ownership problem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #18 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com ---
a) Still get directory ownership problem.
You still not offering solution. Fedora review is not about running once per 4 month forever broken fedora-review tool. There half of Fedora packages in official repo have the same or similar issues. Issues created by fedora-review itself. No one cares about them: upstream app developers, Fedora developers and me too. What really worries me is that Fedora will soon run out of apps/packages and there will be no one willing to maintain them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #19 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- The following are unexpected:
/usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas /usr/share/icons/hicolor /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps /usr/share/glib-2.0
Maybe adding a Build-Requires hicolor-icon-theme will help for some of them: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/hicolor-icon-theme/hicolor-icon-them...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #20 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- Added: BR: hicolor-icon-theme BR: glib2
Previously [1] fedora-review-service have different results, weird: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131#c14
---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-ra...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #21 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- Typo:
BR: hicolor-icon-theme BR: glib2
->
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Requires: glib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #22 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It seems Fedora-review is broken for these as well. Related discussion: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2948
Documentation: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories...
$ rpm -qf /usr/share/dbus-1/services dbus-common-1.14.10-3.fc40.noarch $ rpm -qf /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas glib2-2.80.0-1.fc40.aarch64 $ rpm -qf /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic hicolor-icon-theme-0.17-18.fc40.noarch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #23 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- If i correctly understand we should do not require this two packages then since this fedora-review bug:
Requires: dbus-common Requires: glib2
->
/dev/null
---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-ra...
It's still complain about /usr/share/glib-2.0. And now also about /usr/share/metainfo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #24 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-40... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-40...
All necessary runtime deps for owning directories declared. Package works fine. Fedora-review bugs could be ignored here and users should not wait for another half year.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|benson_muite@emailplus.org |nobody@fedoraproject.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
--- Comment #25 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#reviewer_n...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2034002 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2034002&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6926738 to 7461867
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7461867 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #28 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com ---
%global forgeurl https://gitlab.com/rmnvgr/%%7Bname%7D
Please
%global forgeurl https://gitlab.com/rmnvgr/metadata-cleaner
Release: 0%{?dist}
We start at 1 in Fedora (Suse 0), but modern package uses %autorelease
Summary: Python GTK application to view and clean metadata in files, using mat2
It's over 80 characters, just use
Summary: View and clean metadata in files, using mat2
Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and langpacks-<locale>)
This is never used, just Requires: %{name}-langpacks = %{version}-%{release} from the main package, although I am not sure why you split it from the main package. Main package is noarch, it may have been interesting if it was arched, but even then the package is less than 2 MB.
- Bump the package to 2.5.5
Source0: %{forgesource}
Remove the 0 for modern SPECs.
%changelog
Use %autochangelog in conjonction wuth %autorelease
My take:
%global forgeurl https://gitlab.com/rmnvgr/%%7Bname%7D %global tag v%{version} %global appid fr.romainvigier.MetadataCleaner %global gtk_version 4.6
Name: metadata-cleaner Version: 2.5.5 %forgemeta Release: %autorelease Summary: Python GTK application to view and clean metadata in files, using mat2
# - The source code is released under the terms of the GNU General Public # License 3.0 or later. # - The original artwork and translations are released under the terms of the # Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. # - Additional icons from the Icon Development Kit of the GNOME Design Team are # released under the terms of the CC0 1.0 Universal. License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND CC0-1.0 URL: %{forgeurl} Source: %{forgesource}
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils BuildRequires: itstool BuildRequires: libappstream-glib BuildRequires: meson >= 0.59.0 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk4) >= %{gtk_version}
Requires: dbus-common Requires: gtk4 >= %{gtk_version} Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Requires: libadwaita >= 1.2 Requires: mat2 Requires: yelp
%global _description %{expand: Metadata within a file can tell a lot about you. Cameras record data about when and where a picture was taken and which camera was used. Office applications automatically add author and company information to documents and spreadsheets. This is sensitive information and you may not want to disclose it. This tool allows you to view metadata in your files and to get rid of it, as much as possible. Under the hood, it relies on mat2 to parse and remove the metadata.}
%description %_description
%prep %forgeautosetup -p1
%build %meson %meson_build
%install %meson_install %find_lang %{appid} --with-gnome
%check appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/%{appid}.metainfo.xml desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{appid}.desktop
%files -f %{appid}.lang %license LICENSE.md LICENSES/* %doc README.md CHANGELOG.md %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name}/ %{_datadir}/applications/%{appid}.desktop %{_datadir}/dbus-1/services/*.service %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/*.gschema.xml %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/*/%{appid}.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/symbolic/*/%{appid}-symbolic.svg %{_metainfodir}/%{appid}.metainfo.xml
%changelog %autochangelog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #29 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com ---
Release: 0%{?dist}
We start at 1 in Fedora (Suse 0), but modern package uses %autorelease
OK. 0%{?dist} only using before import to official Fedora repo.
non-%autorelease used for Copr compatibility but maybe this not relevant now. OK.
Summary: Python GTK application to view and clean metadata in files, using mat2
It's over 80 characters
Without spaces it's exactly 80 characters. Fedora-review also didn't warn about long summary. But OK, I'll shorten it.
although I am not sure why you split it from the main package
Due warn: metadata-cleaner.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 83%
Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19425 bytes in 2 files.
Since main package is non-arched there is less reasons for this. Especially with this case where '%find_lang %{appid} --with-gnome' macros grabs help and localization files altogether.
---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-40... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-40...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #30 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Oh yes you're about 80 characters, just realize I did a error while checking.
If you keep the split package, require it from the main.
Copr is perfectly fine with autorelease, unless you build for other distro. .
Ill chèche when I am finally home from work.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #31 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, package approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/metadata-cleaner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #33 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #31)
Thanks for review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1066b5ab2a (metadata-cleaner-2.5.5-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1066b5ab2a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f8aeac9aa3 (metadata-cleaner-2.5.5-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f8aeac9aa3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-05-20 18:20:11
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1066b5ab2a (metadata-cleaner-2.5.5-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-8807424905 (metadata-cleaner-2.5.5-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8807424905
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f8aeac9aa3 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-f8aeac9aa3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f8aeac9aa3
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-8807424905 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-8807424905 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8807424905
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f8aeac9aa3 (metadata-cleaner-2.5.5-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243131
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-8807424905 (metadata-cleaner-2.5.5-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org