Hello
I currently pushing updates for my packages. I have 2 "problems" with rpmlint.
The spec file is: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/awf-gtk4/blob/rawhide/f/awf-gtk4.spec (same for awf-gtk2 and awf-gtk3).
I'm not sure to understand why I get the following warnings:
fedpkg lint
(none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr. rpmlint: 2.4.0 awf-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk4
If someone have ideas. Thanks!
Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
There is a French version of the package %description (%description -l fr) but you do not have a French dictionary installed so rpmlint cannot do a spelling check. I believe installing hunspell-fr would help, or you can ignore the complaing.
awf-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk4
rpmlint --explain no-manual-page-for-binary says "Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page."
So the package installs an executable named "awf-gtk4" is installed, but no corresponding manual page is installed. It is nice if all executables have manual pages, and you should check the source to make sure that it doesn't include one which somehow isn't being installed, but otherwise your options are:
1. See if someone else has written a manual page which you can include. 2. Write one yourself. 3. Ignore the warning, since it's not mandatory that all executables have manpages.
Most people in this situation choose #3.
- J<
Thanks
hunspell-fr is already installed... but yes, this is not really important.
For the man page warning, you are right, but now I understand the problem I got. When I run: fedpkg lint, it checks all packages, not only the latest version specified in the spec file: 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked
There is a directory named x86_64, and I found old packages version without man page... #noob I removed all previous versions, and now there are no problems anymore.
Le 07/06/2023 à 20:49, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
There is a French version of the package %description (%description -l fr) but you do not have a French dictionary installed so rpmlint cannot do a spelling check. I believe installing hunspell-fr would help, or you can ignore the complaing.
awf-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk4
rpmlint --explain no-manual-page-for-binary says "Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page."
So the package installs an executable named "awf-gtk4" is installed, but no corresponding manual page is installed. It is nice if all executables have manual pages, and you should check the source to make sure that it doesn't include one which somehow isn't being installed, but otherwise your options are:
- See if someone else has written a manual page which you can include.
- Write one yourself.
- Ignore the warning, since it's not mandatory that all executables have manpages.
Most people in this situation choose #3.
- J<
Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
Thanks hunspell-fr is already installed... but yes, this is not really important.
Looking at the code, I see that it actually uses enchant, and I guess enchant uses aspell instead of hunspell. (It's all a bit confusing to me, especially since I thought aspell was going away in the near future.) So maybe the magic packages are enchant2-aspell and aspell-fr.
- J<
Ok, perfect with aspell-fr + enchant2-aspell. So I replace hunspell-fr by aspell-fr!
Not sure if I need to add `BuildRequires: enchant2-aspell` or not.
Le 07/06/2023 à 21:52, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
Thanks hunspell-fr is already installed... but yes, this is not really important.
Looking at the code, I see that it actually uses enchant, and I guess enchant uses aspell instead of hunspell. (It's all a bit confusing to me, especially since I thought aspell was going away in the near future.) So maybe the magic packages are enchant2-aspell and aspell-fr.
- J<
Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
Not sure if I need to add `BuildRequires: enchant2-aspell` or not.
No, this isn't a requirement of your package; it is something that needs to be installed on the machine where you are running rpmlint.
- J<
V Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 07:32:37PM +0200, Fabrice Creuzot napsal(a):
Ok, perfect with aspell-fr + enchant2-aspell. So I replace hunspell-fr by aspell-fr!
May I know how did you make rpmlint to check a spelling? For me since the replacement of rpmlint with rpmlint2, rpmlint does not report any misspellings. I have installed:
rpmlint-2.4.0-8.fc39.noarch enchant2-2.5.0-1.fc39.x86_64 python3-enchant-3.2.2-6.fc38.noarch enchant2-aspell-2.5.0-1.fc39.x86_64 aspell-0.60.8-11.fc38.x86_64 aspell-en-2020.12.07-7.fc38.x86_64
Enchant itself works:
$ echo mispeling | enchant-2 -l -d en mispeling
but running rpmlint on a spec file with the very same misspelled word in a description does not report any error.
-- Petr
Command used: rpmlint file.spec file.rpm
But I think there is something wrong anyway. Here is an example.
Since the beginning my spec file: - %description ... - %description -l fr ...
With rpmlint 2.4.0 + hunspell-fr - (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
With rpmlint 2.4.0 + aspell-en aspell-fr enchant2-aspell - file.src: E: spelling-error ('dgdfhune', '%description -l fr dgdfhune -> déshuntage') - file.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dgdfhune', '%description -l fr dgdfhune -> déshuntage')
Now by updating my spec file like this - %description -l en ... - %description -l fr ...
With rpmlint 2.4.0 + aspell-en aspell-fr enchant2-aspell - file.src: E: spelling-error ('dgdfhune', '%description -l fr dgdfhune -> déshuntage') - file.src: E: spelling-error ('visualffl', '%description -l en visualffl -> visual') - file.x86_64: E: no-description-tag
Le 09/06/2023 à 09:34, Petr Pisar a écrit :
V Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 07:32:37PM +0200, Fabrice Creuzot napsal(a):
Ok, perfect with aspell-fr + enchant2-aspell. So I replace hunspell-fr by aspell-fr!
May I know how did you make rpmlint to check a spelling? For me since the replacement of rpmlint with rpmlint2, rpmlint does not report any misspellings. I have installed:
rpmlint-2.4.0-8.fc39.noarch enchant2-2.5.0-1.fc39.x86_64 python3-enchant-3.2.2-6.fc38.noarch enchant2-aspell-2.5.0-1.fc39.x86_64 aspell-0.60.8-11.fc38.x86_64 aspell-en-2020.12.07-7.fc38.x86_64
Enchant itself works:
$ echo mispeling | enchant-2 -l -d en mispeling
but running rpmlint on a spec file with the very same misspelled word in a description does not report any error.
-- Petr
packaging mailing list -- packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
V Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 06:58:46PM +0200, Fabrice Creuzot napsal(a):
Command used: rpmlint file.spec file.rpm
But I think there is something wrong anyway. Here is an example.
Since the beginning my spec file:
- %description ...
- %description -l fr ...
With rpmlint 2.4.0 + hunspell-fr
- (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
With rpmlint 2.4.0 + aspell-en aspell-fr enchant2-aspell
- file.src: E: spelling-error ('dgdfhune', '%description -l fr dgdfhune ->
déshuntage')
- file.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dgdfhune', '%description -l fr dgdfhune
-> déshuntage')
Now by updating my spec file like this
- %description -l en ...
- %description -l fr ...
With rpmlint 2.4.0 + aspell-en aspell-fr enchant2-aspell
- file.src: E: spelling-error ('dgdfhune', '%description -l fr dgdfhune ->
déshuntage')
- file.src: E: spelling-error ('visualffl', '%description -l en visualffl ->
visual')
- file.x86_64: E: no-description-tag
It ignores descriptions in the default langague. I also found that it does not spell-check spec files. I reported it at https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/1072.
-- Petr
I thought that Fedora is considering deprecating aspell and so it should not be used ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AspellDeprecation
Perhaps this is a good reason to suggest that aspell should not be deprecated ?
On 6/8/23 10:32, Fabrice Creuzot wrote:
Ok, perfect with aspell-fr + enchant2-aspell. So I replace hunspell-fr by aspell-fr!
Not sure if I need to add `BuildRequires: enchant2-aspell` or not.
Le 07/06/2023 à 21:52, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
> Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
Thanks hunspell-fr is already installed... but yes, this is not really important.
Looking at the code, I see that it actually uses enchant, and I guess enchant uses aspell instead of hunspell. (It's all a bit confusing to me, especially since I thought aspell was going away in the near future.) So maybe the magic packages are enchant2-aspell and aspell-fr.
- J<
Dne 07. 06. 23 v 20:49 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
There is a French version of the package %description (%description -l fr) but you do not have a French dictionary installed so rpmlint cannot do a spelling check. I believe installing hunspell-fr would help, or you can ignore the complaing.
awf-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk4
rpmlint --explain no-manual-page-for-binary says "Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page."
So the package installs an executable named "awf-gtk4" is installed, but no corresponding manual page is installed. It is nice if all executables have manual pages, and you should check the source to make sure that it doesn't include one which somehow isn't being installed, but otherwise your options are:
- See if someone else has written a manual page which you can include.
- Write one yourself.
One option to consider is to use help2man:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
Vít
- Ignore the warning, since it's not mandatory that all executables have manpages.
Most people in this situation choose #3.
- J<
packaging mailing list -- packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:56 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 07. 06. 23 v 20:49 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
> Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
There is a French version of the package %description (%description -l fr) but you do not have a French dictionary installed so rpmlint cannot do a spelling check. I believe installing hunspell-fr would help, or you can ignore the complaing.
awf-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk4
rpmlint --explain no-manual-page-for-binary says "Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page."
So the package installs an executable named "awf-gtk4" is installed, but no corresponding manual page is installed. It is nice if all executables have manual pages, and you should check the source to make sure that it doesn't include one which somehow isn't being installed, but otherwise your options are:
- See if someone else has written a manual page which you can include.
- Write one yourself.
One option to consider is to use help2man:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
Does it actually make sense to do that though? If the contents of the manpage is just a duplicate of the output of "$binary --help", does it serve any purpose (except inflate package size)?
Fabio
V Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 11:24:04AM +0200, Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:56 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 07. 06. 23 v 20:49 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>> Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
There is a French version of the package %description (%description -l fr) but you do not have a French dictionary installed so rpmlint cannot do a spelling check. I believe installing hunspell-fr would help, or you can ignore the complaing.
awf-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk4
rpmlint --explain no-manual-page-for-binary says "Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page."
So the package installs an executable named "awf-gtk4" is installed, but no corresponding manual page is installed. It is nice if all executables have manual pages, and you should check the source to make sure that it doesn't include one which somehow isn't being installed, but otherwise your options are:
- See if someone else has written a manual page which you can include.
- Write one yourself.
One option to consider is to use help2man:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
Does it actually make sense to do that though? If the contents of the manpage is just a duplicate of the output of "$binary --help", does it serve any purpose (except inflate package size)?
No. It's not helpfull.
-- Petr
Dne 08. 06. 23 v 11:24 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:56 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 07. 06. 23 v 20:49 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>> Fabrice Creuzot code@luigifab.fr writes:
W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for fr.
There is a French version of the package %description (%description -l fr) but you do not have a French dictionary installed so rpmlint cannot do a spelling check. I believe installing hunspell-fr would help, or you can ignore the complaing.
awf-gtk4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk4
rpmlint --explain no-manual-page-for-binary says "Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page."
So the package installs an executable named "awf-gtk4" is installed, but no corresponding manual page is installed. It is nice if all executables have manual pages, and you should check the source to make sure that it doesn't include one which somehow isn't being installed, but otherwise your options are:
- See if someone else has written a manual page which you can include.
- Write one yourself.
One option to consider is to use help2man:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-puma....
Does it actually make sense to do that though?
Well ¯_(ツ)_/¯
But you could then also argue with the two suggestions above.
And there are certainly project which are using man pages as an source for their --help output.
Vít
If the contents of the manpage is just a duplicate of the output of "$binary --help", does it serve any purpose (except inflate package size)?
Fabio _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org