Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/appstream-data.spec SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/appstream-data-21-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7032671 Fedora Account System Username: rhughes Description: This package provides a the distribution specific AppStream metadata required for the GNOME and KDE software centers. The upstream data is built weekly using createrepo_as and the extra data in fedora-appstream. $ rpmlint */appstream-data* appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US createrepo -> procreate, repeater appstream-data.noarch: W: no-documentation appstream-data.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US createrepo -> procreate, repeater appstream-data.src: W: strange-permission fedora-21-icons.tar.gz 0660L appstream-data.src: W: strange-permission fedora-21.xml.gz 0660L 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. NOTE1: The "/usr/share/app-info/xmls/fedora-21.xml.gz" is supposed to be gzip'd on disk, as it's quicker to decompress+read than it is to read the largeish XML file. NOTE2: This data has traditionally been installed by gnome-software, which KDE (understandably) didn't want to depend on, hence me filing this review request for a split out package. NOTE3: The long term goal is to generate this metadata on the Fedora servers, but this isn't going to be done for Fedora 21, i.e. Fedora 22 at the earliest. This is due to the requirement that we mirror the upstream screenshots and also that we're still fixing the XML extractor to add new use-cases like https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=709476 Regarding the license, I chose an "and" of all the http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/#metadata_license values mapped back from SPDX to Fedora values. I really don't think we want to include the superset of all the applications that make up the metadata as the real "prose" has to be under one of those content licences (enforced by createrepo_as) and the other content is generated from the .desktop files.
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib That shouldn't be there, the package doesn't "build" anything
(In reply to Lukáš Tinkl from comment #1) > BuildRequires: libappstream-glib > > That shouldn't be there, the package doesn't "build" anything It's for /usr/bin/appstream-util that's used in %install.
- The description contains a double article: "This package provides a the ..." - The koji URL points to some other package's build
(In reply to Lukáš Tinkl from comment #3) > - The description contains a double article: "This package provides a the Fixed, sorry. > - The koji URL points to some other package's build Oops, that was supposed to be: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7035138 -- sorry!
The review fails in these points: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/app-info/icons, /usr/share/app- info/xmls, /usr/share/app-info/icons/fedora-21, /usr/share/app-info [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/app-info/icons, /usr/share/app-info, /usr/share/app-info/xmls, /usr/share/app- info/icons/fedora-21 Full review below: 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]: 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 %doc. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/app-info/icons, /usr/share/app- info/xmls, /usr/share/app-info/icons/fedora-21, /usr/share/app-info [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/app-info/icons, /usr/share/app-info, /usr/share/app-info/xmls, /usr/share/app- info/icons/fedora-21 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: appstream-data-21-1.fc20.noarch.rpm appstream-data-21-1.fc20.src.rpm appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US createrepo -> procreate, repeater appstream-data.noarch: W: no-documentation appstream-data.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US createrepo -> procreate, repeater appstream-data.src: W: strange-permission fedora-21-icons.tar.gz 0660L appstream-data.src: W: strange-permission fedora-21.xml.gz 0660L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint appstream-data appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal appstream-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US createrepo -> procreate, repeater appstream-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- appstream-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- appstream-data: appstream-data Source checksums ---------------- http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fedora-21-icons.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ffd06d7372aa4e0bed4868fe5a6e0657f471ac51def6fd1c04e448245799c235 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ffd06d7372aa4e0bed4868fe5a6e0657f471ac51def6fd1c04e448245799c235 http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/fedora-21.xml.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4d8e3681925cce1b25f2a7a379c0ebc9abf43066ea5d6eb0fe02044a538d4f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4d8e3681925cce1b25f2a7a379c0ebc9abf43066ea5d6eb0fe02044a538d4f7 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1107802 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
* Wed Jun 11 2014 Richard Hughes <richard> 21-2 - Own the correct directories - Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107802#c5 New spec updated and new srpm available at http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/appstream-data-21-2.fc20.src.rpm
All seems good to go (excerpt from the updated review run below)! ... [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. ... Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n appstream-data-21-2.fc20.src.rpm -r
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: appstream-data Short Description: Fedora AppStream metadata Upstream URL: https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as Owners: rhughes Branches: f20 InitialCC: rhughes
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Great, thanks all.
*** Bug 1026117 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***