Spec URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-runtime-config.spec SRPM URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-runtime-config-27-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: This package includes configuration files that are installed into the flatpak runtime filesystem during the runtime creation process; it is also installed into the build root when building RPMs. It contains all configuration files that need to be different when executing a flatpak. Fedora Account System Username: otaylor
Directory ownserhip: should probably own /app. For the GPL, specifying a version and including the license in the sources is required, I think: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Timestamp preservation during the install process is optional, but easy (add a -p). 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /app/etc, /app, /app/etc/ld.so.conf.d, /app/cache, /app/etc/fonts, /app/etc/fonts/conf.d [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /app/etc, /app, /app/etc/ld.so.conf.d, /app/cache, /app/etc/fonts, /app/etc/fonts/conf.d [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. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [!]: %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-runtime-config-27-1.fc27.noarch.rpm flatpak-runtime-config-27-1.fc27.src.rpm flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: no-url-tag flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: no-documentation flatpak-runtime-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically flatpak-runtime-config.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog flatpak-runtime-config.src: W: invalid-license GPL flatpak-runtime-config.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: no-url-tag flatpak-runtime-config.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- flatpak-runtime-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig Provides -------- flatpak-runtime-config: flatpak-runtime-config Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1460081 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
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /app/etc, /app, /app/etc/ld.so.conf.d, /app/cache, /app/etc/fonts, /app/etc/fonts/conf.d It looks like you had the flatpak-rpm-macros package installed when you built this; this package is meant to be built with standard macros. The question of whether something should create the filesystem directories in /app is interesting (current feeling no - there's not a lot of harm from unowned directories *in a flatpak packages where nothing is upgraded or removed*, but not relevant for this package since the runtime doesn't even provide /app - that's mounted from the application. Spec URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-runtime-config.spec SRPM URL: https://people.gnome.org/~otaylor/flatpak-runtime-config-27-2.fc27.src.rpm * Tue Jun 13 2017 Owen Taylor <otaylor> - 27-2 - Switch license to MIT - Own /usr/cache since it's not a standard directory - Require fontpackages-filesystem for /etc/fonts/conf.d
Makes sense to me.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/flatpak-runtime-config
This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.