Bug 2213540

Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher.spec

SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6506225
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2213540-folder-color-switcher/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06506225-folder-color-switcher/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

fedora-review-service-build

Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher.spec

SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc39.src.rpm

Created attachment 1993063 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6506225 to 6507971

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6507971
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2213540-folder-color-switcher/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06507971-folder-color-switcher/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

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: "Unknown or generated", "Public domain GNU General Public
     License, Version 3". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2213540-folder-color-
     switcher/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/folder-color-
     switcher(mint-x-icons, mint-y-icons)
[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]: 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.
[-]: 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: Test run failed
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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:
[-]: 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.
[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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          folder-color-switcher-nemo-1.5.9-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          folder-color-switcher-caja-1.5.9-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpbbkm9pf0')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/caja-python/extensions/caja-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/nemo-python/extensions/nemo-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
folder-color-switcher.noarch: W: no-documentation
folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: W: no-documentation
folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
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: 31, packages: 3

folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/caja-python/extensions/caja-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/nemo-python/extensions/nemo-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: W: no-documentation
folder-color-switcher.noarch: W: no-documentation
folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
http://packages.linuxmint.com/pool/main/f/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher_1.5.9.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ec4e0c27e0ee00db409ad1b81defeb4856de446035fa835e27d7e97b1fb3e651
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ec4e0c27e0ee00db409ad1b81defeb4856de446035fa835e27d7e97b1fb3e651


Requires
--------
folder-color-switcher (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python3

folder-color-switcher-nemo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    folder-color-switcher
    nemo-python

folder-color-switcher-caja (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    folder-color-switcher
    python-caja



Provides
--------
folder-color-switcher:
    folder-color-switcher

folder-color-switcher-nemo:
    folder-color-switcher-nemo

folder-color-switcher-caja:
    folder-color-switcher-caja



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2213540
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, C/C++, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Python, Java, Perl, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment:
a) There seems to be a signing key:
http://packages.linuxmint.com/pool/main/f/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher_1.5.9.dsc
Can this be used for verification?
b) Koji build:
folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc39.src.rpm

 
> Comment:
> a) There seems to be a signing key:
> http://packages.linuxmint.com/pool/main/f/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-
> switcher_1.5.9.dsc
> Can this be used for verification?
The .dsc file isn't a signature, it only has the checksum.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification

> b) Koji build:
> folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc39.src.rpm

Do you mean do a scratch build?

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107285782



These error warnings seem bogus to me.


folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/caja-python/extensions/caja-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/nemo-python/extensions/nemo-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3


1: I could make them executable to fix but using 755 perms seems overkill considering they work fine with 644 perms.
2: I could remove the python shebang, that seems a pointless exercise just to appease rpmlint.

Sorry, did do a koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283775

You may consider removing the shebangs on import.

Approved.

Review of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242806
would be appreciated if time allows. Fixing a few things with tests upstream.
Can let you know when ready.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/folder-color-switcher

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #9)
> Sorry, did do a koji build:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283775
> 
> You may consider removing the shebangs on import.
> 
> Approved.

Thank you for the review.

> 
> Review of:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242806
> would be appreciated if time allows. Fixing a few things with tests upstream.
> Can let you know when ready.

I have assigned the review to me, let me know once it's ready.

Package is now in repositories, closing review.