Spec URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/Specs/seahorse-caja.spec SRPM URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SRPM/seahorse-caja-1.18.1-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Seahorse caja is an extension for caja which allows encryption and decryption of OpenPGP files using GnuPG. Fedora Account System Username: raveit65
New SPEC and SRPM: Spec URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/Specs/seahorse-caja.spec SRPM URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SRPM/seahorse-caja-1.18.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
glib-compile-schemas is not needed in Fedora 24 and later. See https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&oldid=481889#GSettings_Schema
Thanks, for this site i was searching for. I found only the new one. But how the keys were applied nowadays? Same for old desktop database scriptlet which was required by review-tool here? And is it save to to remove those scriplets from all packages? And do you know how the situation is for epel7 repo, as most packages of mine i build for rhel7 too?
Ok, all seems to be needed only for epel7. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging?rd=Packaging:EPEL
New SPEC and SRPM: Spec URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/Specs/seahorse-caja.spec SRPM URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SRPM/seahorse-caja-1.18.1-2.fc28.src.rpm
> But how the keys were applied nowadays? AFAIK, it is automated when you install the package. > Same for old desktop database scriptlet which was required by review-tool here? Yes > And is it save to to remove those scriplets from all packages? Yes, since F24 is EOL, all packages should be upgraded to remove the scriplets. >And do you know how the situation is for epel7 repo, as most packages of mine i build for rhel7 too? You should keep the scriplets for EPEL/RHEL, as they are based on an oldder Fedora. Now the review: - seahorse-caja.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/seahorse-caja/COPYING You should notify upstream about this. - You could use pkgconfig to handle your dependencies: BuildRequires: mate-common BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gcr-3) BuildRequires: gnupg2 BuildRequires: gpgme-devel >= 1.0 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcaja-extension) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gnome-keyring-1) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dbus-glib-1) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(cryptui-0.0) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libnotify) None of this is blocking, so the package is accepted. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/seahorse-caja/review- seahorse-caja/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in seahorse-caja-debuginfo , seahorse-caja-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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: seahorse-caja-1.18.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm seahorse-caja-debuginfo-1.18.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm seahorse-caja-debugsource-1.18.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm seahorse-caja-1.18.1-2.fc28.src.rpm seahorse-caja.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/seahorse-caja/COPYING seahorse-caja-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Thanks, for the review. I will add you hints to package before pushing to git. Personal, i prefer not to use pkgconfig to handle your dependencies, but i can change it. Guys from irc fedora-devel told me that transfiletriggers is use for scripplets. ie. [rave@mother ~]$ rpm -q --filetriggers glib2 transfiletriggerin scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- /usr/lib64/gio/modules gio-querymodules-64 /usr/lib64/gio/modules &> /dev/null || : transfiletriggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- /usr/lib64/gio/modules gio-querymodules-64 /usr/lib64/gio/modules &> /dev/null || : transfiletriggerin scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas glib-compile-schemas /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : transfiletriggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas glib-compile-schemas /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || :
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/seahorse-caja