Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/wwyvie/i3blocks/src/c5e0a1e2da7d2d102c68718b7afb4da5189a1a1c/i3blocks.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/wwyvie/i3blocks/src/c5e0a1e2da7d2d102c68718b7afb4da5189a1a1c/i3blocks-1.4-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: i3blocks is a highly flexible status line for the i3 window manager. It handles clicks, signals and language-agnostic user scripts. Fedora Account System Username: wyvie It's my first package for fedora, so I would need a sponsor. I haven't done anything for fedora yet, but I have several repos on copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/wyvie/ i3blocks turns out to be very popular even on copr. AFAIK almost everybody who uses i3, also uses i3blocks. Koji builds: f26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25315260 f27: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25315349 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25315440
- Please link to the RAW SPEC in the future like: https://bitbucket.org/wwyvie/i3blocks/raw/c5e0a1e2da7d2d102c68718b7afb4da5189a1a1c/i3blocks.spec it allows fedora-review to fetch it directly from the bug report. - PREFIX="/usr" Use the macro %{_prefix}: PREFIX="%{_prefix}" - Not an error but the %description is usually put before the %prep part. - [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. You need to make sure that the build use Fedora CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. Usually it is done with the %configure or %cmake macro but since they are no configure step, pass the flags directly to make: %make_build CFLAGS="%{optflags} -Iinclude" LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}" PREFIX="%{_prefix}" (no need for debug, the debug flags are already set by Fedora flags). - [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/i3blocks You must own this directory, simply remove the * in %files: %{_libexecdir}/i3blocks - You must install the license file in %install with %license, and you should include the *.md files as doc: %files %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md %license COPYING I can't sponsor you, I suggest introducing yourself to the -devel mailing list, and do informalreview to show that you understand the guidelines. 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]: 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. [!]: 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/i3blocks/review- i3blocks/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/i3blocks [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/i3blocks [!]: %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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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]: 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: i3blocks-1.4-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm i3blocks-debuginfo-1.4-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm i3blocks-debugsource-1.4-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm i3blocks-1.4-1.fc29.src.rpm i3blocks.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib i3blocks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/i3blocks.conf i3blocks-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Robert-André, thank you very much for the review! I fixed the issues as pointed out. new spec: https://bitbucket.org/wwyvie/i3blocks/raw/48cee6fab56eb692f92da7b90f34d6d9e12cfae7/i3blocks.spec new srpm: https://bitbucket.org/wwyvie/i3blocks/raw/48cee6fab56eb692f92da7b90f34d6d9e12cfae7/i3blocks-1.4-1.fc27.src.rpm
Fedora review run fine with this package. will upload results soon.
%build %make_build CFLAGS="%{optflags} -Iinclude" LDFLAGS="%{__global_ldflags}" PREFIX="%{_prefix}" You can now use %build %set_build_flags %make_build - Use a glob instead of .gz for the man page as the compression might change in the future: %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
Alice, Could you please fix the SPEC with Robert-André's comments? Thanks
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
I use i3blocks and would like to see this finalized. Can I help this along in some way? I have reviewer credentials.
(In reply to Bob Hepple from comment #8) > I use i3blocks and would like to see this finalized. > > Can I help this along in some way? I have reviewer credentials. It seems the reporter has not answered for a while, if you want to maintain it, you would need to create a new review request and mark this one as Duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1938637 ***