Description of problem: Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mkyral/plasma-unstable/plasma-vault.git/tree/plasma-vault.spec?h=f26 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkyral/plasma-unstable/fedora-26-x86_64/00604183-plasma-vault/plasma-vault-5.10.95-0.1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Plasma Vault offers strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way Fedora Account System Username: mkyral Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.10.95 Additional info: To be imported in rawhide together with the rest of Plasma 5.11 (beta or final)
Hello, - I don't think you need to run %post -p /sbin/ldconfig . The .so files are plugins in private directories. - Your %description line must be split to stay below 80 characters per line. - You must own the directory /usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.vault - The version in the %changelog is not consistent with the Release: tag. It should probably be: * Thu Sep 14 2017 Martin Kyral <martin.kyral> - 5.10.95-0.1 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ============ 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)", "Unknown or generated". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/plasma-vault/review-plasma- vault/licensecheck.txt [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/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.vault [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/plasma/applets, /usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.plasma.vault [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plasma- vault-debuginfo , plasma-vault-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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: plasma-vault-5.10.95-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm plasma-vault-debuginfo-5.10.95-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm plasma-vault-debugsource-5.10.95-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm plasma-vault-5.10.95-0.1.fc28.src.rpm plasma-vault.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Plasma Vault allows to lock and encrypt sets of documents and hide them from prying eyes even when the user is logged in. plasma-vault.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.10.95-0 ['5.10.95-0.1.fc28', '5.10.95-0.1'] plasma-vault.x86_64: W: no-documentation plasma-vault.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/org.kde.plasma.vault.appdata.xml plasma-vault-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation plasma-vault.src: E: description-line-too-long C Plasma Vault allows to lock and encrypt sets of documents and hide them from prying eyes even when the user is logged in. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
Thanks for the feedback. I (hopefully) fixed the problems and changed the release tag to 1%{?dist} so it conforms to rawhide versioning rules: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mkyral/plasma-unstable/plasma-vault.git/tree/plasma-vault.spec?h=f26
commit: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mkyral/plasma-unstable/plasma-vault.git/commit/plasma-vault.spec?h=f26
srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkyral/plasma-unstable/fedora-26-x86_64/00613059-plasma-vault/plasma-vault-5.10.95-1.fc26.src.rpm
You can remove %post since it's now empty. Packaqe accepted.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plasma-vault
plasma-vault landed in rawhide. Time to close the review bug?
This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 26 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-05-29. Fedora 26 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.