Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/astroid.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/astroid-0.8-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Astroid is a lightweight and fast Mail User Agent that provides a graphical interface to searching, display and composing email, organized in thread and tags. Astroid uses the notmuch backend for blazingly fast searches through tons of email. Astroid searches, displays and composes emails - and rely on other programs for fetching, syncing and sending email. Fedora Account System Username: tdecacqu
Hello, - Please bump to latest version 0.9.1 - Please use a more meaningful name for your archive, just like this: Source0: https://github.com/astroidmail/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - You're installing icons in hicolors, you must run gtk-update-icon-cache. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache %post touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ] ; then %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : fi %postun touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ] ; then %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : fi - You're installing a .desktop file, you must run desktop-file-validate. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop - %{_datarootdir} → %{_datadir} - webkitgtk and webkitgtk3 have been retired due to security issues. See: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/AKVB363GFCHHJ5MTHGVYHYT6NLLTF5VM/ Please port the package to WebKit2. This is non-trivial work. It seems to be in the "project" of upstream: https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid/projects/1#card-2220439 Until then, the package can't be included in Rawhide.
Thanks for the review, I'll wait for the upstream port to WebKit2 to update this review request.
Upstream moved to webkit 2 with astroid v0.13, which was released on 2018-07-20 [0]. [0] https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid/blob/master/History.txt
@tdecacqu, are you still interested to maintain this package? I am willing to co-maintain it once it is approved.
Timethée, I'm still interested in that package and i wouldn't mind a co-maintainer. I can update the spec and srpm next week.
Here are new links for the spec and src.rpm files: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/astroid.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/astroid-0.13-1.fc28.src.rpm
The default cmake build macros adds the -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON flag, and it makes the internal library libhypocycloid being built as shared while it's meant to be static. The fix I added to the spec is not satisfactory, I guess we need to improve the astroid build system to keep the library statically linked. Here is the rpmlint error: astroid.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libhypocycloid.so libhypocycloid.so Other than that, the astroid command seems to work as expected.
upstream merged a fix: https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid/pull/538 , i'll propose a better spec file for the next release.
Koji scratch build of the rpm from comment 6 succeeds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29267953 But we should either wait for a release with the fix from comment 7 or carry that as a patch on top of the latest release. A local compile of the latest git tree runs fine here (F28) on my existing notmuch database. Could use somewhat more documentation, though ;)
- You're installing a .desktop file, you must run desktop-file-validate. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop - %{_datarootdir} → %{_datadir} >Here is the rpmlint error: >astroid.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libhypocycloid.so libhypocycloid.so This error is because the library is not versioned: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning Is it a private library?
Thanks for the review. I'll propose a new spec for the version 0.14 which contains the needed fix. Robert-André, the new spec will do the desktop-file-validate step. The library should be statically linked in version 0.14.
Astroid-0.14: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/astroid.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tdecacqu/astroid-0.14-1.fc29.src.rpm
- You' re missing BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils to use desktop-file-validate - Install the two COPYING file with %license in %files - Install ui/icons/LICENSE with %license in %files - Add OFL to the License fields for the font "Credits: The font is Exo 2, licensed under a SIL Open Font License: https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/exo-2" - Add a comment explaining the license breakdown. - The version in your %changelog entry is not the right one: astroid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.13-1 ['0.14-1.fc30', '0.14-1'] - %{_usr} → %{_prefix} Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License Creative Commons Attribution Public License (v4.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 209 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/astroid/review-astroid/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in astroid- debuginfo , astroid-debugsource [?]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: astroid-0.14-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm astroid-debuginfo-0.14-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm astroid-debugsource-0.14-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm astroid-0.14-1.fc30.src.rpm astroid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US blazingly -> amazingly, glazing astroid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.13-1 ['0.14-1.fc30', '0.14-1'] astroid.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gir-1.0/Astroid-0.2.gir astroid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) notmuch -> not much, not-much, notch astroid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US notmuch -> not much, not-much, notch astroid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US blazingly -> amazingly, glazing 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Is the package still being worked on by the requester?
I am no longer using astroid... @Timothée, are you interested in taking over the request?
Nope, I already have too many packages in need of love.
I can take it.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #17) > I can take it. Are you still intending to take over and incorporate the viewer's comments in the spec rework?
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days