Spec URL: https://tpopela.fedorapeople.org/libappindicator-sharp.spec SRPM URL: https://tpopela.fedorapeople.org/libappindicator-sharp-12.10.0-12.fc27.src.rpm Description: This package is only intended for the EPEL 7. We will need to separate libappindicator-sharp(-devel) from the libappindicator package that is already in EPEL 7 as the libappindicator package will be moved to RHEL. We don't have Mono available in RHEL, so the libappindicator-sharp(-devel) will need to stay in EPEL. This is because of Chrome - see https://crbug.com/799144 - Switch to using appindicator3 by default on Linux Fedora Account System Username: tpopela
How do you intend to keep it in sync with original package and how will you ensure that libraries are ABI compatible (the one you remove in here and system-wide version)?
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1) > How do you intend to keep it in sync with original package and how will you > ensure that libraries are ABI compatible (the one you remove in here and > system-wide version)? Both will be maintained by the same person (me). I can add some warning/note to the SPEC file for readers.. I don't see any other easy way to do it..
Also I should note that the libappindicator-sharp(-devel) does not depend on libappindicator at all - see https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=8061410
- License files should be installed with %license, not %doc: %files %doc AUTHORS README %license COPYING COPYING.LGPL.2.1 - A comment explaining the patch purpose would be nice. - Don't mix spaces and tabs, use one or another: libappindicator-sharp.src:31: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 31, tab: line 1) ExclusiveArch: %{mono_arches} - libappindicator-sharp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono#Empty_debuginfo %global debug_package %{nil} Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3)". 119 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libappindicator- sharp/review-libappindicator-sharp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 40960 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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 libappindicator-sharp-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libappindicator-sharp-12.10.0-12.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm libappindicator-sharp-devel-12.10.0-12.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm libappindicator-sharp-debuginfo-12.10.0-12.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm libappindicator-sharp-12.10.0-12.el7.centos.src.rpm libappindicator-sharp.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 12.10.0-12 ['12.10.0-12.el7.centos', '12.10.0-12.centos'] libappindicator-sharp.x86_64: E: no-binary libappindicator-sharp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libappindicator-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US appindicator -> app indicator, app-indicator, indicator libappindicator-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libappindicator-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libappindicator-sharp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package libappindicator-sharp.src:58: W: configure-without-libdir-spec libappindicator-sharp.src:104: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/appindicator-sharp/ libappindicator-sharp.src:105: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/appindicator-sharp/appindicator-sharp.dll libappindicator-sharp.src:106: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/appindicator-sharp/policy.0.0.appindicator-sharp.dll libappindicator-sharp.src:107: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/appindicator-sharp/ libappindicator-sharp.src:108: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/appindicator-sharp/*/ libappindicator-sharp.src:109: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/appindicator-sharp/*/appindicator-sharp.dll libappindicator-sharp.src:110: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/appindicator-sharp/*/appindicator-sharp.dll.config libappindicator-sharp.src:111: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/policy.0.0.appindicator-sharp/ libappindicator-sharp.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/policy.0.0.appindicator-sharp/*/ libappindicator-sharp.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/policy.0.0.appindicator-sharp/*/policy.0.0.appindicator-sharp.dll libappindicator-sharp.src:114: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/gac/policy.0.0.appindicator-sharp/*/policy.0.0.appindicator-sharp.config libappindicator-sharp.src:31: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 31, tab: line 1) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 7 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > - A comment explaining the patch purpose would be nice. Honestly I don't know why it's there I assume that it's because the original install path doesn't follow some Fedora rule. The patch was in the package from the beginning.
New version is available on Spec URL: https://tpopela.fedorapeople.org/libappindicator-sharp.spec SRPM URL: https://tpopela.fedorapeople.org/libappindicator-sharp-12.10.0-12.fc27.src.rpm
Ok, package approved.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7) > Ok, package approved. Thank you Robert!
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libappindicator-sharp