Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kermitwk/rpm-packaging/master/gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/kermitwk/rpm-packaging/blob/master/gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-0.20170217-1.fc25.src.rpm?raw=true Description: this is a package for gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-setting. Fedora Account System Username: kaiwang
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kermitwk/rpm-packaging/master/gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kermitwk/rpm-packaging/master/gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-0.20170217-1.fc25.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues to Fix: 1) "rpmlint -iv *.rpm" gives gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C use ibus font setting of ibus setup dialog to enhance the user experience gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C use ibus font setting of ibus setup dialog to enhance the user experience => This can be fixed as explained above. Also, Good to keep short Summary say "A GNOME Shell extension for ibus-setup custom font settings" Fix this and provide new updated package links. No need to bump the release tag. ===== 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1424963-gnome-shell-extension- ibus-font/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-0.20170217-1.fc26.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-0.20170217-1.fc26.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C use ibus font setting of ibus setup dialog to enhance the user experience gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.noarch: W: no-documentation gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C use ibus font setting of ibus setup dialog to enhance the user experience 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C use ibus font setting of ibus setup dialog to enhance the user experience gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell ibus Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font: gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font Source checksums ---------------- https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/ibus/ibus-font-setting/gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-20170217.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 788ea60ef58abc6739e0e4ad3d84b8be0d26df59e8a7a91baa69ac3aed29f9b8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 788ea60ef58abc6739e0e4ad3d84b8be0d26df59e8a7a91baa69ac3aed29f9b8 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1424963 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
To get sponsor for your package in packager group, please follow these things. We have this process, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to get sponsored into the packager group. Can you either submit few more packages and/or some full detailed package reviews? This is needed to make sure package submitter understands the rpm packaging well and follows the fedora packaging guidelines. Please go through the following links 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines 3) To find the packages already submitted for review, check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ 4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer is useful while doing package reviews. 5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help review packages in fedora. You need to use this and do un-official package reviews of packages submitted by other contributors. While doing so mention "This is un-official review of the package." at top of your review comment. Good to review packages listed in http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment link here so that I can look how you have reviewed those packages. An example command to run fedora-review on any package review bugzilla is fedora-review -b <bugid> -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 If you got any questions please ask here or on Freenode IRC join #fedora-devel :)
Here are some packages I reviewed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411053 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328248
Please do few more full package reviews where you can find some issues and provide fixes for that. I know this can be much work for a new contributors but that is how they can get familiar with the Fedora packaging. So keep reviewing packages. You can also check this to suggest any rpmlint issue fixes -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks
Any updates here? If not in next 2 weeks then I will close this review.
I want to own this package.
Okay. I am approving the SRPM submitted by Kaiwang in comment#3
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-0.20170217-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ddfc7765a6
gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-0.20170217-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ddfc7765a6
gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font-0.20170217-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.