Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/slick-greeter/1/slick-greeter.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/slick-greeter/1/slick-greeter-1.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: A cross-distro LightDM greeter based on unity-greeter. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in slick-greeter See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema ---> False positive. Doing so is discouraged for F24+. - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ---> Run desktop-file-validate in %check, please. ===== 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: "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated", "CC by (v3.0) GPL (v3)". 227 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/vm_shared/fedora/review/1440138-slick- greeter/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/xgreeters ---> Please make this package own that dir. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /var/lib/polkit-1/localauthority/10-vendor.d, /var/lib/polkit-1/localauthority, /var/lib/polkit-1, /usr/share/xgreeters ---> Package should have Requires: polkit-pkla-compat%{?_isa} [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]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Issues are present. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 slick- greeter-debuginfo ---> Debuginfo is autogenerated. False positive. [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. ---> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18835523 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. ---> desktop-file *MUST* be validated! [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: slick-greeter-1.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm slick-greeter-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm slick-greeter-1.0.0-1.fc27.src.rpm slick-greeter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> bistro, district slick-greeter.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib slick-greeter.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id slick-greeter.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id slick-greeter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> bistro, district 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: slick-greeter-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- slick-greeter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh arc-theme config(slick-greeter) desktop-backgrounds-compat libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcanberra.so.0()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(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) liblightdm-gobject-1.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) lightdm(x86-64) mint-y-icons rtld(GNU_HASH) slick-greeter-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- slick-greeter: config(slick-greeter) lightdm-greeter slick-greeter slick-greeter(x86-64) slick-greeter-debuginfo: slick-greeter-debuginfo slick-greeter-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linuxmint/slick-greeter/archive/1.0.0.tar.gz#/slick-greeter-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48f14c90a205872c807927fcf099a3913653dace091c224bbbcc0b35586dd475 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48f14c90a205872c807927fcf099a3913653dace091c224bbbcc0b35586dd475 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1440138 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ===== Solution ===== Issues present, NOT approved. Please fix them and I'll start a re-review.
Forgot to mention: Since the package sets the Arc-Theme and Mint-Y-Icons in it's config, there should be Requires on those, too.
Done Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/slick-greeter/1/slick-greeter.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/slick-greeter/1/slick-greeter-1.0.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #2) > Forgot to mention: > > Since the package sets the Arc-Theme and Mint-Y-Icons in it's config, there > should be Requires on those, too. I'm sure it's there already # Themeing require Requires: arc-theme Requires: mint-y-icons Requires: desktop-backgrounds-compat
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #4) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #2) > > Forgot to mention: > > > > Since the package sets the Arc-Theme and Mint-Y-Icons in it's config, there > > should be Requires on those, too. > > I'm sure it's there already > > > # Themeing require > Requires: arc-theme > Requires: mint-y-icons > Requires: desktop-backgrounds-compat Okie, I might have overlooked them… :(
Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/slick-greeter/2/slick-greeter.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/slick-greeter/2/slick-greeter-1.0.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in slick-greeter See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema ---> False positive. ===== 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: "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated", "CC by (v3.0) GPL (v3)". 227 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/vm_shared/fedora/review/1440138-slick- greeter/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in slick- greeter-debuginfo ---> Debuginfo is autogenerated. False positive. [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. [x]: %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: slick-greeter-1.0.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm slick-greeter-debuginfo-1.0.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm slick-greeter-1.0.0-2.fc27.src.rpm slick-greeter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> bistro, district slick-greeter.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib slick-greeter.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id slick-greeter.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id slick-greeter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> bistro, district 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. ---> Nothing to worry about here. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: slick-greeter-debuginfo-1.0.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- slick-greeter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh arc-theme config(slick-greeter) desktop-backgrounds-compat libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcanberra.so.0()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(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) liblightdm-gobject-1.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) lightdm(x86-64) mint-y-icons polkit-pkla-compat(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) slick-greeter-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- slick-greeter: config(slick-greeter) lightdm-greeter slick-greeter slick-greeter(x86-64) slick-greeter-debuginfo: slick-greeter-debuginfo slick-greeter-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linuxmint/slick-greeter/archive/1.0.0.tar.gz#/slick-greeter-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48f14c90a205872c807927fcf099a3913653dace091c224bbbcc0b35586dd475 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48f14c90a205872c807927fcf099a3913653dace091c224bbbcc0b35586dd475 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1440138 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ===== Solution ===== Package APPROVED!!! Please add me to the list of admins / co-maintainers when requesting SCM for the package.
Btw… We maybe want to set the used font in config to 'Noto Sans Regular' and add Requires: google-noto-sans-fonts. What do you think?
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/slick-greeter
slick-greeter-1.0.0-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2fcf9b9763
slick-greeter-1.0.0-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b25358f984
lightdm-settings-1.0.2-3.fc25, slick-greeter-1.0.0-10.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-2fcf9b9763
cinnamon-3.2.8-18.fc26, lightdm-settings-1.0.2-3.fc26, slick-greeter-1.0.0-10.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-b25358f984
cinnamon-3.2.8-18.fc26, lightdm-settings-1.0.2-3.fc26, slick-greeter-1.0.0-10.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
lightdm-settings-1.0.2-3.fc25 slick-greeter-1.0.0-12.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2fcf9b9763
lightdm-settings-1.0.2-3.fc25, slick-greeter-1.0.0-12.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-2fcf9b9763
lightdm-settings-1.0.2-3.fc25, slick-greeter-1.0.0-12.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.