Spec URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.1.13-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Tilda is a Linux terminal taking after the likeness of many classic terminals from first person shooter games, Quake, Doom and Half-Life (to name a few), where the terminal has no border and is hidden from the desktop until a key is pressed. Fedora Account System Username: hannes This is a review for a package, which already existed in previous fedora releases and was retired a while ago.
Taken, review will follow soon!
There was a new release yesterday. I will update it tonight and will provide an updated spec and src.rpm. Johannes
Spec URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7884796 Could remove the .desktop patch, because it was upstreamed.
I performed the review, there are some things to fix. Review below. Greetings, Christian Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in tilda See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache ====> Please have a look at this! - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/tilda See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ====> OK as the old package is retired ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/packaging/1153302-tilda/licensecheck.txt ====> GPLV2+ is the correct license [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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ====> You can remove this from spec [-]: 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. [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 5 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 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]: 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 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://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/archive#/tilda_1.2.orig.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ====> I discussed this with hannes, the tar provided by github is a bit bad, hannes added a comment in spec how he created the tar from git. Correct URI would be https://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/archive/tilda-%{version}.tar.gz which returns tilda-tilda-%{version} then. I analyzed it a bit more in detail, just call %setup with the matching -n and the default tar works [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. ====> 1.2.1 was released yesterday [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tilda-1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm tilda-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm tilda.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tilda/COPYING tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda tilda.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} tilda.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} tilda.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 15) tilda.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/archive#/tilda_1.2.orig.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. ====> Please report the incorrect FSF address to upstream. This is all you have to do for now. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint tilda tilda.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tilda/COPYING tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ====> Same here Requires -------- tilda (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libconfuse.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(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-3.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libvte2_90.so.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- tilda: application() application(tilda.desktop) tilda tilda(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1153302 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
I modified the package, feel free to adopt it Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
I adopted all the changes and will notify upstream about the changed fsf address. Please see: Spec URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7899182 Thanks for the fast review!
Approved! Everything is fine now :) Review below Greetings, Christian Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/tilda See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ====> Not an issue, retired package, see above ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/packaging/1153302-tilda/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in tilda [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 5 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 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]: 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 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: [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tilda-1.2.1-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm tilda-1.2.1-1.fc22.src.rpm tilda.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tilda/COPYING tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda tilda.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. ====> hannes will notify upstream => OK Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint tilda tilda.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tilda/COPYING tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ====> Same here Requires -------- tilda (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libconfuse.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(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-3.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libvte2_90.so.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- tilda: application() application(tilda.desktop) tilda tilda(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/archive/tilda-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 13d482eb18a59266118146d0d3212d761290da608b8651aa3a2bfdf3f8ca0fb5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 13d482eb18a59266118146d0d3212d761290da608b8651aa3a2bfdf3f8ca0fb5 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1153302 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: tilda New Branches: f20 f21 Owners: hannes I don't know if the exisiting maintainer laxathom will also have commit access to those branches or just to the ones which already existed.
Git done (by process-git-requests).