https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876

Dillen Meijboom info@dmeijboom.nl changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876

--- Comment #2 from Dillen Meijboom info@dmeijboom.nl --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)

• You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %install

• You should install README.md and CHANGELOG.md with %doc, no need for

install README.md %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}/README.md install CHANGELOG.md %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}/CHANGELOG.md

• %{_prefix}/share → %{_datadir}

I fixed all three things, checked rpmlint and added a -doc subpackage. Can you check it again?

New Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide... New SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876

--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- You don't need a separate doc subpackages for two files.

Not needed:

install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}

%{_pkgdocdir} in %files

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876

--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com ---

I will fix this but can you explain when it is appropriate to create a separate package for documentation? Or is this never suppose to happen?

Usually when the documentation is over 1MB or contains a lot of files.

Also why are "install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}" and "%{_pkgdocdir} in %files" not needed?

You don't need to create the dir, specifying %doc README.md will take care of that.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876

--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Yeah you could drop the test, the package is simple enough I guess.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Include the Release info in your %changelog entry:

* Thu Nov 29 2018 Dillen Meijboom info@dmeijboom.nl - 0.5.0-1

Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.

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

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

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

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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /zsh-autosuggestions/review-zsh-autosuggestions/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [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. [-]: %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]: 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: zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm zsh-autosuggestions.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5.0 ['0.5.0-1.fc30', '0.5.0-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876

--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- The changelog entry is composed of

* Date Name <email> - Version-Release

You're missing the Release part: -1