Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bmeneguele/cwm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00687163-cwm/cwm.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bmeneguele/cwm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00687163-cwm/cwm-6.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Hi all, I just finished packaging up cwm (calm window manager) from OpenBSD operating system project and would appreciate some review to add it to Fedora's Pkg Collection. The official repo for cwm is a CVS repo maintained by OpenBSD userspace guys, but this package follows an already existent git repo which unfortunately is not maintained by me. The git repo maintainer guaranteed that no changes in cwm's functionalities were made, just small tweaks to port it to Linux (and other Unices). I'll keep an eye in these changes to certify nothing related to functionality is changed. Fedora Account System Username: bmeneguele
- There is no license file, consider grabbing it from the original source code here: https://github.com/mariusae/cwm and add it to your %files. - These's some BSD code ir there too. Add it to the license field and a comment explaning which license cover what. BSD (3 clause) -------------- cwm-6.2/queue.h 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cwm/review-cwm/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. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cwm- debuginfo , cwm-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: No rpmlint messages. [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: cwm-6.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm cwm-debuginfo-6.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm cwm-debugsource-6.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm cwm-6.2-1.fc28.src.rpm cwm.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cwm-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Hi Robert-André, thanks for the quick review! And indeed, I missed the license file because on official repo it was removed once all source files had the license within (it seems to be a bit difference philosophy :) ). But I did what you suggested: copied the LICENSE file from older source tree and also added BSD to "License: " field. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bmeneguele/cwm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00687312-cwm/cwm.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bmeneguele/cwm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00687312-cwm/cwm-6.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Thanks!
Package approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cwm
Package built: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1009493 Thank you guys.