Description: This tool currently lets users configure slick-greeter. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18841124 Issues: No known issues. Rpmlint has some false positive complaints. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/lightdm-settings.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/lightdm-settings-1.0.2-0.1.fc27.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance!
Looks fine => Approved! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1440240-lightdm-settings/licensecheck.txt [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in lightdm-settings [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 2 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]: 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). [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ====> is noarch package [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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lightdm-settings-1.0.2-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm lightdm-settings-1.0.2-0.1.fc27.src.rpm lightdm-settings.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib lightdm-settings.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lightdm-settings lightdm-settings.src:30: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/*.py lightdm-settings.src:62: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name}</annotate> lightdm-settings.src:81: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/%{name} lightdm-settings.src:109: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings. ==> The errors are false positives, we have to use it like that here (noarch package) Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory lightdm-settings.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib lightdm-settings.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lightdm-settings 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- lightdm-settings (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 filesystem hicolor-icon-theme polkit python3-gobject slick-greeter Provides -------- lightdm-settings: application() application(lightdm-settings.desktop) lightdm-settings Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linuxmint/lightdm-settings/archive/1.0.2.tar.gz#/lightdm-settings-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c76fa452adaddb617dbd511dfd277d14576f23b8f3d28914160da00855581592 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c76fa452adaddb617dbd511dfd277d14576f23b8f3d28914160da00855581592 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -L slick/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1440240 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /home/review/slick/slick-greeter-1.0.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/review/slick/slick-greeter-debuginfo-1.0.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lightdm-settings
lightdm-settings-1.0.2-1.fc25 slick-greeter-1.0.0-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2fcf9b9763
cinnamon-3.2.8-16.fc26 lightdm-settings-1.0.2-1.fc26 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.
Apologies if this is the wrong place to give this feedback. The current version of slick greeter in F26 Cinnamon Beta has a bug. I think this should be 1.0.6 or 1.0.7 Machine: Lenovo Thinkpad T460s Skylake with external Dell monitor connected Issue: Unable to enter settings for slick greeter via control panel (System Settings -> Administration -> Login Window). Either results in admin password loop or process terminates after entering password. Also, font size of password entered in slick greeter is disproportionate to the size of the field.