https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2004833
Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(amigadave@amigada
| |ve.com)
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
This is a high-quality package with no major problems. Still, I found a handful
of things to look at.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
Add
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
and then, in %check (or in %install after %meson_install, if you prefer),
add:
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_...
- systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
for Systemd user units service files.
Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in xdg-desktop-portal-gnome
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units
I’m not sure what the above diagnostic from fedora-review wants me to do or
say. Consulting the linked guidelines, it appears that you’re using these
macros correctly.
- The fedora-review tool reports the directories /usr/share/dbus-1 and
/usr/share/dbus-1/services need an owner.
I am not sure this claim is quite right. You have
Requires: dbus
and dbus (which is a metapackage) depends on dbus-broker, which depends on
dbus-common, which owns these directories (and is a lightweight package
that only provides configuration and setup files and directory structures).
Still, especially given the following comment in
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dbus/blob/rawhide/f/dbus.spec#_352:
# The 'dbus' package is only retained for compatibility purposes. It will
# eventually be removed and then replaced by 'Provides: dbus' in the
# dbus-daemon package. It will then exclusively be used for other packages
to
# describe their dependency on a system and user bus. It does not pull in
any
# particular dbus *implementation*, nor any libraries. These should be
pulled
# in, if required, via explicit dependencies.
it seems like adding a direct dependency
Requires: dbus-common
for these directories would be wise.
- The Source0 URL is broken. The correct URL is
https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/41/xdg-deskto...
but
Source0:
https://download.gnome.org/sources/%{name}/%{name}-%{tarball_version}.tar.xz
expands to
https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/xdg-desktop-p...
Fix it with something like
%global verdir %(echo '%{version}' | cut -d '~' -f 1)
Source0:
https://download.gnome.org/sources/%{name}/%{verdir}/%{name}-%{tarball_ve...
- You do not need
%{?systemd_requires}
for the systemd scriptlets. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_de....
Additionally,
BuildRequires: systemd
can be replaced with
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_sc....
===== 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 2.1", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later",
"GNU
General Public License v2.0 or later". 60 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2004833-xdg-desktop-
portal-gnome/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/dbus-1/services,
/usr/share/dbus-1
The dbus→dbus-broker→dbus-common chain should provide this ownership
indirectly, but I suggest a direct dependency on dbus-common anyway. See
Issues.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/xdg-
desktop-portal-gnome-41.alpha.tar.xz
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/SourceURL/
[-]: 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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
Source URL needs to be corrected.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Upstream provides no tests.
[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]: 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: xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-41~alpha-1.fc36.src.rpm
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backend ->
Backed, Back end, Back-end
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
SessionManager -> Session Manager, Session-manager, Nonaggression
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backend ->
Backed, Back end, Back-end
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
SessionManager -> Session Manager, Session-manager, Nonaggression
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://download.gnome.org/sources/xdg-desktop-portal-gnome/xdg-desktop-p...
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo-41~alpha-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
dbus
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
systemd
xdg-desktop-portal
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome:
application()
application(xdg-desktop-portal-gnome.desktop)
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome(x86-64)
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debuginfo(x86-64)
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource:
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource
xdg-desktop-portal-gnome-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2004833
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, R, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, fonts,
Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2004833