Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ferdnyc/parlatype/srpm-builds/00792896/parlatype.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ferdnyc/parlatype/srpm-builds/00792896/parlatype-1.5.6-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Parlatype is a minimal audio player for manual speech transcription, written for the GNOME desktop environment. It plays audio sources to transcribe them in your favorite text application. I was initially looking at this package to go into rpmfusion, due to the MP3 file support. But with MP3 now part of gstreamer1-plugins-good, there's no reason Parlatype can't be part of Fedora proper. So I thought I'd make my bid for Fedora package maintainer status. Fedora Account System Username: ferdnyc
Note: The parlatype-libreoffice-helpers subpackage installs scripts in /usr/lib/libreoffice/share/Scripts/ to enable integration with Parlatype. As a result, it Requires: libreoffice-pyuno%{?isa} The Requires line causes a false-positive explicit-lib-dependency error in rpmlint, which thinks the package name (starting with 'lib') is a library. I had to add the following to $HOME/.config/rpmlint to suppress the error: addFilter("explicit-lib-dependency libreoffice.*")
- Not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Not used anymore: %post /sbin/ldconfig /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : %postun /sbin/ldconfig if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : fi %posttrans /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : - subpackage -devel should require -libs, not the main package: %package devel Summary: Development files for %{name} Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - To avoid unintended soname bump, it is now forbidden to use a glob for the major soname version, be more precise instead %{_libdir}/libparlatype.so.1* - You need to Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories - Add gcc as a BR - The license field should also mention CC-BY-SA and add a comment explaining the license breakdown. Also install COPYING_CCBYSA with %license in %files. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache must not be invoked in %post and %posttrans for Fedora 26 and later. Note: icons in parlatype See: - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v4.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF All Permissive", "*No copyright* CC by-nd (v4.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 342 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/parlatype/review- parlatype/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/16x16/actions(glade-libs), /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor(glade-libs), /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/22x22(glade-libs), /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/16x16(glade-libs), /usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/22x22/actions(glade-libs), /usr/share /gtk-doc/html(harfbuzz-devel, intel-gpu-tools) [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 parlatype-debuginfo , parlatype-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]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1617920 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: parlatype-1.5.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm parlatype-libs-1.5.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm parlatype-devel-1.5.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm parlatype-libreoffice-helpers-1.5.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm parlatype-debuginfo-1.5.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm parlatype-debugsource-1.5.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm parlatype-1.5.6-1.fc30.src.rpm parlatype-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation parlatype-libreoffice-helpers.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libreoffice-pyuno parlatype-libreoffice-helpers.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib parlatype-libreoffice-helpers.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Thanks very much, Robert-André. I appreciate you taking the time to review, and for and the helpful pointers. I've updated the package in accordance with your feedback. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - Not needed: > - Not used anymore: > - subpackage -devel should require -libs, not the main package: > - To avoid unintended soname bump, it is now forbidden to use a glob for > the major soname version, be more precise instead > - You need to Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons > directories > - Add gcc as a BR All completed. > - The license field should also mention CC-BY-SA and add a comment > explaining the license breakdown. Also install COPYING_CCBYSA with %license > in %files. Done, COPYING_CCBYSA is packaged via %license and the spec now reads: # Source code is licensed GPLv3+, icons and help files are CC-BY-SA License: GPLv3+ and CC-BY-SA I wanted to ask: COPYING_CCBYSA applies two different versions of the CC license, for some reason. * the icon files are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 * the help content is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Do I need to get into that level of detail in the License: line, or does "CC-BY-SA" sufficiently cover it? Updated Spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ferdnyc/parlatype/srpm-builds/00794202/parlatype.spec Updated SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ferdnyc/parlatype/srpm-builds/00794202/parlatype-1.5.6-1.fc28.src.rpm Specfile diff in dist-git: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/ferdnyc/parlatype/parlatype.git/diff/?id=40002f3b18d0be63bd97c883ba76b4c493738b7e Modulo, possibly, that last question of licensing detail, I believe those should address all of the necessary changes.
> Do I need to get into that level of detail in the License: line, or does "CC-BY-SA" sufficiently cover it No it's ok. - Mistake here: +Requires: hicolor-icontheme It's hicolor-icon-theme Package is approved. Please fix the typo before import. Now you need to find a sponsor. Introduce yourself on the devel mailing list and do informal reviews to show that you understand the guidelines. You can post links to the reviews you've done here.
Whoops! Fixed and rebuilt. Spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ferdnyc/parlatype/fedora-28-x86_64/00794381-parlatype/parlatype.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ferdnyc/parlatype/fedora-28-x86_64/00794381-parlatype/parlatype-1.5.6-1.fc28.src.rpm The .x86_64.fc28.rpm packages from that build install without incident on my F28 system, and Parlatype functions as expected. Thanks once more for your assistance, Robert-André. I can only hope the next steps will go just as smoothly for me.
Package never imported, resetting ticket status.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.