Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00704754-nomad-firewall/nomad-firewall.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00704754-nomad-firewall/nomad-firewall-0.1-2.20180123gitdf1ae0e5de1c8.fc28.src.rpm Description: KDE Plasma 5 KControl Module to configure and control the Uncomplicated Firewall (UFW), by the Nomad Desktop project (a desktop environment based on Plasma 5 technologies). Fedora Account System Username: kkofler
- Use cmake for your BR, as it is usual for KDE packages: BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5Core) BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5Qml) BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5X11Extras) BuildRequires: kf5-rpm-macros BuildRequires: cmake(KF5CoreAddons) BuildRequires: cmake(KF5KCMUtils) BuildRequires: cmake(KF5I18n) BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Plasma) BuildRequires: cmake(KF5KDELibs4Support) BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Declarative) BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Auth) BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Config) - The short hash for Github is usually 7 characters long, not 13. - You should "Requires: dbus" to own these dbus directories Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kcms, /usr/share/kpackage/kcms, /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services, /usr/share/dbus-1, /etc/dbus-1, /etc/dbus-1/system.d 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nomad-firewall/review- nomad-firewall/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/kpackage/kcms [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kcms, /usr/share/kpackage/kcms, /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services, /usr/share/dbus-1, /etc/dbus-1, /etc/dbus-1/system.d [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. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: nomad-firewall-0.1-2.20180123gitdf1ae0e5de1c8.fc28.x86_64.rpm nomad-firewall-debuginfo-0.1-2.20180123gitdf1ae0e5de1c8.fc28.x86_64.rpm nomad-firewall-debugsource-0.1-2.20180123gitdf1ae0e5de1c8.fc28.x86_64.rpm nomad-firewall-0.1-2.20180123gitdf1ae0e5de1c8.fc28.src.rpm nomad-firewall.x86_64: W: no-documentation nomad-firewall.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.nomad.ufw.conf nomad-firewall.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.nxos.netstat.conf nomad-firewall-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) nomad-firewall-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
> - Use cmake for your BR, as it is usual for KDE packages: > > BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5Core) > BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5Qml) > BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5X11Extras) > BuildRequires: kf5-rpm-macros > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5CoreAddons) > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5KCMUtils) > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5I18n) > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Plasma) > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5KDELibs4Support) > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Declarative) > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Auth) > BuildRequires: cmake(KF5Config) Is it really? All the ones I have seen so far use package names or pkgconfig BRs. But I guess that's because the cmake(*) Provides are a recent addition (which is also why I haven't thought of using them). I don't like virtual BRs all that much, but I can make this change if you think it is an improvement (but I should probably use the full list of used modules then: e.g., the CMakeLists.txt uses more than just Qt5Core from qt5-qtbase). > - The short hash for Github is usually 7 characters long, not 13. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots "The packager MAY include up to 17 characters of additional information after the date." "git" is 3 characters, that leaves up to 14 for the commit version. I think we should include as many digits as allowed of the commit hash to avoid running into hash collisions. I'd put all 64 if I were allowed to. I should change it from 13 to 14 characters though, some older version of the guidelines only allowed up to 13 characters (which is why I picked that number in all my git snapshot packages), now it allows up to 14. You can note that for the GitHub Source0 URL itself (the only part that is ever sent to GitHub), I actually use all 64 digits of the commit hash, not my 13 characters, which are only for the Release tag.
Correction: all 40 digits, not 64.
>I don't like virtual BRs all that much, but I can make this change if you think it is an improvement (but I should probably use the full list of used modules then: e.g., the CMakeLists.txt uses more than just Qt5Core from qt5-qtbase). Please do. > I think we should include as many digits as allowed of the commit hash to avoid running into hash collisions. That's unlikely but do as you wish, it's just the usual practice, not a requirement per se.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
I think we can close this at this point. The review got stalled because the reviewer demanded changes that were not actually required by the packaging guidelines (at least at the time of the review). In the meantime, the package got renamed upstream to nx-firewall. I also found that the user interface is highly impractical to use (see https://github.com/nx-desktop/nx-firewall/issues/15 and https://github.com/nx-desktop/nx-firewall/issues/16 ) and the issues have not been addressed. (In fact, not much has happened upstream other than the rename.) And the plan upstream is still to rewrite everything to use another backend ( https://github.com/nx-desktop/nx-firewall/issues/21 ). So I decided against shipping this package in Kannolo, and hence lost interest in it.