Unretiring qesteidutil package https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdigidocpp Description Libdigidocpp library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards. Documentation http://open-eid.github.io/libdigidocpp https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp.spec https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc27.src.rpm
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install - Not needed: %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} - The license files should be included with the %license macro, not %doc: %files %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md %license COPYING LICENSE.LGPL And: %files devel %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md %files doc %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md doc/* - Remove the empty %check - Use pkgconfig for BR when you can: BuildRequires: cmake BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl) BuildRequires: xml-security-c-devel BuildRequires: xsd BuildRequires: pkgconfig(minizip) # Provide xxd BuildRequires: vim-common - Both Requires for the -devel -doc subpackages should include the arch with %{?_isa}: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS You need to convert this file to UTF-8. (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8) - libdigidocpp.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards → The "Summary:" must not exceed 80 characters.
Concerning > - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
%makeinstall should not be used, %make_install is good.
Germano, stop adding me to your reports and stop sending me emails, you have shown that you don't listen other's opinions and you're unable to work together with this, I'm not going to waste my time with you.
(In reply to Juha Tuomala from comment #4) > you have shown that you don't listen other's opinions and you're unable to work > together with this Your very personal opinion
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build > > - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install > > - Not needed: > > %clean > rm -rf %{buildroot} > > - The license files should be included with the %license macro, not %doc: > > %files > %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md > %license COPYING LICENSE.LGPL > > And: > > %files devel > %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md > > %files doc > %doc AUTHORS README.md CONTRIBUTING.md RELEASE-NOTES.md doc/* > > - Remove the empty %check > > - Use pkgconfig for BR when you can: > > BuildRequires: cmake > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl) > BuildRequires: xml-security-c-devel > BuildRequires: xsd > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(minizip) > # Provide xxd > BuildRequires: vim-common > > - Both Requires for the -devel -doc subpackages should include the arch > with %{?_isa}: > > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Done > - libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS > > You need to convert this file to UTF-8. (See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8) Is there a way to convert this with an RPM macro? I would be better than patching the file > > - libdigidocpp.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Library offers creating, > signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES > and XML-DSIG standards > > → The "Summary:" must not exceed 80 characters. Done https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp.spec https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc27.src.rpm
>Is there a way to convert this with an RPM macro? I would be better than patching the file None that I am aware of, iconv is the wày to go.
Done, it should not return any utf8 warning https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp.spec https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc27.src.rpm
- Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep? %prep %setup -q iconv --from=ISO-8859-1 --to=UTF-8 AUTHORS > AUTHORS.new && \ touch -r AUTHORS AUTHORS.new && \ mv AUTHORS.new AUTHORS - Escape the macros in your changelog entry by doubling the % - As mentioned before, COPYING should be included with %license, not %doc - Still have utf-8 errors for this 3 files: libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip Patching doesn't change encoding, see first point. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libdigidocpp See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Ms-RL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libdigidocpp/review- libdigidocpp/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: 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 81920 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 libdigidocpp-debuginfo , libdigidocpp-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-devel-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-doc-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-debuginfo-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-debugsource-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.src.rpm libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/878252.p12 libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_dsig.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_manifest.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601-relaxed.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v141-201601.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/conf.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/en_31916201v010101.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_additionaltypes_xsd.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_sie_xsd.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020201_201601xsd.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xml.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/COPYING libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/AUTHORS libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/COPYING libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip libdigidocpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdigidocpp.src:99: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_build libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_install libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %clean libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %license libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release} libdigidocpp.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10) 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 36 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #9) > - Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep? Because I experienced technical problems, but I will try your solution > libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip I want to unzip such file and make a separate doc subpackage
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp.spec https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/libdigidocpp/libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc27.src.rpm
Seems good to me, package approved.
Germono, you approached me with emails asking for help but acted against me what we wrote in emails. This software is all about juridical trust and I don't trust you. So I repeat myself: I don't want to have nothing to do with this or you. Remove me from these packages, including co-maintainership, I cannot do it myself because lack of rights.
You can remove yourself from package maintainership, if you don't manage to do it, ask Fedora admins in #fedora-admin