Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-rpm-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-rpm-macros-27-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: The macros in this package set up the RPM build environment so built applications install in /app rather than /usr. This package is meant only for installation in buildroots for modules that will be packaged as Flatpaks. Fedora Account System Username: otaylor
Simple stuff, the only blocker being ownership of the /etc/rpm directory, which should probably just be co-owned by this package. Either that, or Requires rpm (but that seems a bit silly): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function You could also add a -p to the install command to preserve the timestamp of the source file, but that's not required. 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. [-]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rpm [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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [!]: 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]: 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: flatpak-rpm-macros-27-1.fc27.noarch.rpm flatpak-rpm-macros-27-1.fc27.src.rpm flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) flatpaks -> flattops flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US buildroots -> build roots, build-roots, bodybuilders flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C The macros in this package set up the RPM build environment so built applications install in /app rather than /usr. This package is meant only for installation in buildroots for modules that will be packaged as Flatpaks. flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation flatpak-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) flatpaks -> flattops flatpak-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user flatpak-rpm-macros.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US buildroots -> build roots, build-roots, bodybuilders flatpak-rpm-macros.src: E: description-line-too-long C The macros in this package set up the RPM build environment so built applications install in /app rather than /usr. This package is meant only for installation in buildroots for modules that will be packaged as Flatpaks. flatpak-rpm-macros.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) flatpaks -> flattops flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US buildroots -> build roots, build-roots, bodybuilders flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C The macros in this package set up the RPM build environment so built applications install in /app rather than /usr. This package is meant only for installation in buildroots for modules that will be packaged as Flatpaks. flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag flatpak-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- flatpak-rpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- flatpak-rpm-macros: flatpak-rpm-macros Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1460076 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
Spec URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-rpm-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-rpm-macros-27-2.fc27.src.rpm * Tue Jun 13 2017 Owen Taylor <otaylor> - 27-2 - Wrap description lines - Own /etc/rpm, to avoid requiring rpm package - Preserve timestamp on installation I chose not to include the license text since it's not really mandatory and: $ rpm -qa | grep rpm-macros | wc -l 12 [otaylor@localhost flatpak-rpm-macros]$ ls /usr/share/doc/*rpm-macros* ls: cannot access '/usr/share/doc/*rpm-macros*': No such file or directory
Looks good to me!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/flatpak-rpm-macros
This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.