Spec URL: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/morituri.spec SRPM URL: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/morituri-0.2.3-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: morituri is a CD ripper aiming for accuracy over speed for UNIX systems. Fedora Account System Username: snuxoll
Here's a completed koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13358771
Hi Stefan, - set configure to be more verbose; - set configure PYTHON variable; - Make command does not use %{?_smp_mflags} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make ; - please, use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, not both; - %defattr(-,root,root) is not need; - use %license for COPYING file http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - use %{python2_sitelib} macro http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros - %changelog is not correct http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
Updated spec file: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/morituri.spec New koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13368364 > - set configure to be more verbose I am now passing --verbose to the configure script, although there is no additional output > - set configure PYTHON variable; Done, since this project is python2 only I am using the %{__python2} macro, thanks for catching this. > - Make command does not use %{?_smp_mflags} Done > - please, use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, not both; I am using %{buildroot} only now > - use %license for COPYING file Done > - use %{python2_sitelib} macro Done > - %changelog is not correct I assume you are referencing the missing ver-rel tag at the end of the changelog line, this has been corrected. If there is something else missing please give me more details.
Good! I'm going to review your package but I cannot sponsor you.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ==== Issues ==== - morituri ships files under GPLv3+ (morituri/common/*). License can be GPLv3+ - /usr/lib64/morituri is not owned; you can use %{_libdir}/morituri/ to include %{_libdir}/morituri directory and its sub-directory. However, to what is %{_libdir}/morituri/plugins needed ? - /etc/bash_completion.d is owned by bash-completion package that is not required. /etc/bash_completion.d directory can be co-owned: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/rip ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/FedoraReview/1318059-morituri/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/morituri [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/morituri [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]: 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: Documentation size is 133120 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 %license. [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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: morituri-0.2.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm morituri-0.2.3-1.fc25.src.rpm morituri.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://thomas.apestaart.org/morituri/trac <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:600)> morituri.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/rip morituri.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://thomas.apestaart.org/morituri/trac <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:600)> morituri.src:46: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/morituri/plugins 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- morituri.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://thomas.apestaart.org/morituri/trac <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:645)> morituri.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/rip 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- morituri (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 cdparanoia cdrdao gstreamer-plugins-good gstreamer-python pycdio python(abi) python-CDDB python-musicbrainz2 python-setuptools pyxdg Provides -------- morituri: morituri Source checksums ---------------- http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/morituri/morituri-0.2.3.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20884da088392e8c2e89dda962e78714689ff80b8066fd2301f42be4835e60ac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20884da088392e8c2e89dda962e78714689ff80b8066fd2301f42be4835e60ac Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (7737a2a) last change: 2015-11-26 Command line :./try-fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1318059 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
> However, to what is %{_libdir}/morituri/plugins needed ? Morituri supports arbitrary plugins, some of which are installed via the entry_points mechanism provided by python eggs and others are simply dropped into the plugins folder. Providing this folder in the package gives a place for users to manually install plugins, and for other plugins to be installed into via packages. I have updated the spec file with fixes to all the listed issues, still available at: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/morituri.spec A new koji scratch build is available here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13377643
One quick edit, I removed the plugins directory from the files list since I switched to including %{_libdir}/morituri, updated spec is again at https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/morituri.spec and here's the scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13377698
(In reply to Stefan Nuxoll from comment #6) > > However, to what is %{_libdir}/morituri/plugins needed ? > > Morituri supports arbitrary plugins, some of which are installed via the > entry_points mechanism provided by python eggs and others are simply dropped > into the plugins folder. Providing this folder in the package gives a place > for users to manually install plugins, and for other plugins to be installed > into via packages. > > I have updated the spec file with fixes to all the listed issues, still > available at: https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/morituri.spec > > A new koji scratch build is available here: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13377643 I doubt that we can package an arched directory in a noarch package. I seen some monituri plugins installed in $HOME/.morituri/plugins, that makes useless an (empty) arched directory. @MichaelSchwendt please, can you help us in this situation ?
I know this isn't the only noarched package to support global plugin installation like this. Perhaps a patch to force the plugindir to be /usr/lib/morituri/plugins and then hard-coding the path in the RPM instead of using _libdir?
(In reply to Stefan Nuxoll from comment #9) > I know this isn't the only noarched package to support global plugin > installation like this. Perhaps a patch to force the plugindir to be > /usr/lib/morituri/plugins and then hard-coding the path in the RPM instead > of using _libdir? Please, ask on devel mailing list.
> I know this isn't the only noarched package to support global plugin > installation like this. Perhaps a patch to force the plugindir to be > /usr/lib/morituri/plugins and then hard-coding the path in the RPM instead of > using _libdir? ??? For a noarch build, %_libdir expands to /usr/lib, regardless of the build host's arch. I also don't see anything in the morituri source code that would look for plugins in an arch-specific directory.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
FYI for anybody looking, `whipper` package is now available.