Bug 1957816
| Summary: | Review Request: kweather - Convergent KDE weather application | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Onuralp SEZER <thunderbirdtr> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <eclipseo> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | code, eclipseo, ngompa13, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | eclipseo:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-05-24 12:27:40 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1957702 | ||
|
Description
Onuralp SEZER
2021-05-06 14:22:23 UTC
I unfortunately don’t have time to review this right now, but at least the following from your fedora-review output above will have to be fixed: ----- > kweather.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1-1 ['0.4-1.fc35', '0.4-1'] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs ----- > kweather.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ Valid short names are listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses ----- > kweather.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/org.kde.kweather.desktop value "0.3" for key "Version" in group "Desktop Entry" is not a known version https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-latest.html (Maybe the upstream author thinks the Version field is for the application version, rather than for the Desktop Entry Specification version to which the .desktop file conforms?) ----- You also “MUST” validate the desktop file (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage) and AppData XML (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/); maybe instead of commenting out these checks, you could patch these files as needed to pass validation until the corresponding upstream issues are fixed? (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #1) > I unfortunately don’t have time to review this right now, but at least the > following from your fedora-review output above will have to be fixed: > > ----- > > > kweather.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1-1 ['0.4-1.fc35', '0.4-1'] I fixed the version to proper version. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs > > ----- > > > kweather.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ I fixed the license part (I forgot it) > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/ > > Valid short names are listed here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses > > ----- > > > kweather.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/org.kde.kweather.desktop value "0.3" for key "Version" in group "Desktop Entry" is not a known version I removed it. (upstream removed as well in their next release) > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_desktop_file_install_usage > > https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec- > latest.html > > (Maybe the upstream author thinks the Version field is for the application > version, rather than for the Desktop Entry Specification version to which > the .desktop file conforms?) > They remove that "Version" part in next version already so I can removed as well For now I used "sed" command to fix it. > ----- > > You also “MUST” validate the desktop file > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_desktop_file_install_usage) and AppData XML > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/); maybe > instead of commenting out these checks, you could patch these files as > needed to pass validation until the corresponding upstream issues are fixed? I re-enabled desktop and appdata check as well. - Add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 104
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/kweather/review-kweather/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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 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: kweather-0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
kweather-debuginfo-0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
kweather-debugsource-0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
kweather-0.4-1.fc35.src.rpm
kweather.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kweather.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kweather
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
"hicolor-icon-theme" package requirement added. Version has been updated. https://pagure.io/kweather/blob/main/f/kweather-21.05-1.fc34.src.rpm https://pagure.io/kweather/blob/main/f/kweather.spec > sed -i 's/GPL-2+/GPL-2/g' %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/metainfo/org.kde.%{name}.appdata.xml
This should be "GPL-2+" -> "GPL-2.0-or-later".
It is fixed as well, thank you. Thank you.(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > sed -i 's/GPL-2+/GPL-2/g' %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/metainfo/org.kde.%{name}.appdata.xml > > This should be "GPL-2+" -> "GPL-2.0-or-later". LGTM, package approved. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kweather Package is available in repositories, closing. |