Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00903979-simple-dnf/simple-dnf.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00903979-simple-dnf/simple-dnf-0.1.2-2.fc30.src.rpm Description: Simple DNF is a fast and simple graphical utility to manage packages and perform basic operations, like Synaptic but for DNF-based Linux distributions. Fedora Account System Username: arkelis Note: This is my first package, I therefore need a sponsor! :) I informed upstream maintainer that I would submit his software to Fedora repositories. I also made several commits to source code. Source code repository: https://github.com/Arkelis/simple_dnf Working COPR: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/
Just some comments to get started: - Docs are missing -> %doc README.md - LICENSE is missing -> %license LICENSE - Is "poetry>=0.12" provided by python3-dnfdaemon? - .desktop file be included in the source as other distribution may need it too - Changelog entry is missing release - There are translations (locales/fr/LC_MESSAGES). They should be included.
My biggest concern is that this package is a fork of https://github.com/hyakosm/simple_dnf.
Thanks for your comments! (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1) > Just some comments to get started: > > - Docs are missing -> %doc README.md > - LICENSE is missing -> %license LICENSE > - Is "poetry>=0.12" provided by python3-dnfdaemon? > - .desktop file be included in the source as other distribution may need it > too > - Changelog entry is missing release > - There are translations (locales/fr/LC_MESSAGES). They should be included. Poetry is just a dev dependency. What do you mean by including locale files? Package has been updated: - SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00908268-simple-dnf/simple-dnf.spec - SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00908268-simple-dnf/simple-dnf-0.1.2-3.fc30.src.rpm > My biggest concern is that this package is a fork of https://github.com/hyakosm/simple_dnf. Yes it is a fork, but changes are meant to be merged into upstream (main maintainer is currently busy).
- What's this? AutoReqProv: no - Use a better name for the archive: Source0: https://github.com/Arkelis/%{pyname}/archive/v{%version}/%{pyname}-%{version}.tar.gz - What's this patch? What does it do? Why is it needed? Add a comment to explain so: Patch0: simple-dnf.patch - Remove the shebang in %prep: simple-dnf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/simple_dnf/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 - Remove executable bits in %prep: simple-dnf.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/simple-dnf/README.md Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/simple-dnf/review-simple- dnf/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [!]: 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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: simple-dnf-0.1.2-3.fc31.noarch.rpm simple-dnf-0.1.2-3.fc31.src.rpm simple-dnf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/simple_dnf/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 simple-dnf.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/simple-dnf/README.md simple-dnf.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary simple-dnf simple-dnf.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/simple_dnf/locales/fr/LC_MESSAGES/simple_dnf.mo simple-dnf.src: W: strange-permission simple-dnf.patch 775 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Hi! Thx for the review! And sorry for the delay SPEC file has been updated: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00956607-simple-dnf/simple-dnf.spec Here is SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00956607-simple-dnf/simple-dnf-0.1.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Regards
- Use a better name for the archive: Source0: https://github.com/Arkelis/%{pyname}/archive/v{%version}/%{pyname}-%{version}.tar.gz Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue. You also need to get sponsored, read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Review stalled
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.