Spec URL: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/libportal/libportal.spec SRPM URL: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/libportal/libportal-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.src.rpm Description: libportal provides GIO-style asynchronous APIs for most Flatpak portals. Fedora Account System Username: hadess Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39481855 rpmlint output: libportal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Flatpak -> Flattop 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. libportal.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Flatpak -> Flattop libportal.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20191211git ['0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e', '0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e'] libportal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Only thing worth mentioning I can spot is that the .spec only requires pkgconfig(gio-2.0) while meson.build in libportal lists both pkgconfig(gio-2.0) and pkgconfig(gio-unix-2.0). That both results in glib2-devel, so it's not that it matters.
(In reply to Jonas Ådahl from comment #1) > Only thing worth mentioning I can spot is that the .spec only requires > pkgconfig(gio-2.0) while meson.build in libportal lists both > pkgconfig(gio-2.0) and pkgconfig(gio-unix-2.0). That both results in > glib2-devel, so it's not that it matters. I'll fix that before upload, thanks.
- Group is not used in Fedora - Start Release at 1. Also you are missing the dist tag: Release: 1.20191211git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} - Request a LICENSE file from upstream - In order to avoid unannounced SONAME bump, we forbid globbing the major SONAME version, be more specific instead: %{_libdir}/libportal.so.0* - Use a better name for your archive: Source: https://github.com/flatpak/libportal/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz - Please fix the changelog entry: libportal.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20191211git ['0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e', '0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e'] * Wed Dec 11 2019 Bastien Nocera <bnocera> - 0.1-1.20191211git7355b1e - Initial release - I don't see this as necessary: Conflicts: %{name} < %{version} Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 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]: 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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: [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: libportal-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.x86_64.rpm libportal-devel-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.x86_64.rpm libportal-devel-doc-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.noarch.rpm libportal-debuginfo-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.x86_64.rpm libportal-debugsource-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.x86_64.rpm libportal-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.src.rpm libportal.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Flatpak -> Flattop libportal.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20191211git ['0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e', '0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e'] libportal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libportal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Flatpak -> Flattop 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > - Group is not used in Fedora Removed. > - Start Release at 1. Also you are missing the dist tag: > > Release: 1.20191211git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} Isn't "1" for the first release? The software here is a 0.1 *pre-release*. Not a version past 0.1. Otherwise I might version it 0.0 instead. > - Request a LICENSE file from upstream Done. https://github.com/flatpak/libportal/issues/7 > - In order to avoid unannounced SONAME bump, we forbid globbing the major > SONAME version, be more specific instead: > > %{_libdir}/libportal.so.0* Done. > - Use a better name for your archive: > > Source: > https://github.com/flatpak/libportal/archive/%{commit}/%{name}- > %{shortcommit}.tar.gz Done. > - Please fix the changelog entry: > > libportal.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20191211git > ['0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e', '0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e'] > > * Wed Dec 11 2019 Bastien Nocera <bnocera> - > 0.1-1.20191211git7355b1e > - Initial release Done. > - I don't see this as necessary: > > Conflicts: %{name} < %{version} Removed. Updated sources at: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/libportal/libportal-0.1-0.20191211git7355b1e.fc31.src.rpm https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/libportal/libportal.spec
>Isn't "1" for the first release? The software here is a 0.1 *pre-release*. Not a version past 0.1. >Otherwise I might version it 0.0 instead. Yes: Prerelease versions In the Version: tag, use the version that upstream has determined the next release will be. For the field of the Release: tag, use a number of the form "0.N" where N is an integer beginning with 1 and increasing for each revision of the package. Prerelease versions MUST use a Release: tag strictly less than 1, as this is the sole indicator that a prerelease has been packaged. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_prerelease_versions So it should be: Release: 0.1..20191211git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} Package is approved, please fix the Release field in the headers and changelog entry before import.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > So it should be: > > Release: 0.1..20191211git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} That's 0.1.20191211git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} though, right? (note the double period) Repo has been requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/20702
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libportal
libportal-0.1-0.1.20191211git7355b1e.fc32 built in: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39689667 Thanks!