Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/calls/-/raw/master/calls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322268-calls/calls-0.1.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A phone dialer and call handler built with GTK3 for mobile devices. Fedora Account System Username: Torbuntu Hello! I'm working with the group to package applications for using Fedora on PinePhone. This is my first time packaging for Fedora. COPR builds of mobile packages: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/packages/
>%{_libdir}/calls/plugins/ofono/libofono.so >%{_libdir}/calls/plugins/ofono/ofono.plugin oFono is currently retired in Fedora and is going through a re-review. If the upstream software allows to omit plugins from a build, for the time being you may hide the oFono plugin behind an %if-%endif. >%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/sm.puri.Calls.svg Add "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". >%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/sm.puri.Calls-symbolic.svg If I'm reading the XDG Icon Theme spec correctly, the icon name has to be an exact match. Please rename the icon during %install to strip the "-symbolic" suffix. https://specifications.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.html >%{_datadir}/metainfo/sm.puri.Calls.appdata.xml You must add "BuildRequires: libappstream-glib" and validate any appdata.xml files installed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage
Thank you for the review! Regarding the symbolic.svg, were you referencing this portion of the docs: `In addition to this there may be an additional file with extra icon-data for each file. It should have the same basename as the image file, with the extension ".icon". e.g. if the icon file is called "mime_source_c.png" the corresponding file would be named "mime_source_c.icon".` If so, that appears to be talking about icon-data, which the symbolic.svg file is not a .icon so it isn't a problem I think. Looking at other project .spec files such as gnome-calendar I see they are also using symbolic.svg: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-calendar/blob/master/f/gnome-calendar.spec#_76
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/calls/-/raw/master/calls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01346989-calls/calls-0.1.4-1.fc33.src.rpm Links with fixes from review.
I'll start reviewing this today.
Please fix up the two small issues identified below, and then I will approve the package. Package Review ============== Issues: * License should be GPLv3+ AND MIT (due to license on src/wayland/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml) * Package should own all directories that it creates 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) GPL (v3 or later)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1818176-calls/srpm/review- calls/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/calls, /usr/lib64/calls/plugins/mm, /usr/lib64/calls/plugins/dummy, /usr/lib64/calls/plugins [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/calls, /usr/lib64/calls/plugins/mm, /usr/lib64/calls/plugins/dummy, /usr/lib64/calls/plugins [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. [x]: 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. [?]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [x]: 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. [x]: %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: calls-0.1.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm calls-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm calls-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm calls-0.1.4-1.fc33.src.rpm calls.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dialer -> dealer, dialed, diaper calls.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A phone dialer and call handler. calls.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dialer -> dealer, dialed, diaper calls.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/sm.puri.Calls.desktop calls.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/3b/ae50ad2c9092663aedb0e1359d227ba33becc3 ../../../../usr/lib64/calls/plugins/ofono/libofono.so calls.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary calls calls.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dialer -> dealer, dialed, diaper calls.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A phone dialer and call handler. calls.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dialer -> dealer, dialed, diaper 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: calls-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. calls-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/calls <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. calls.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dialer -> dealer, dialed, diaper calls.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A phone dialer and call handler. calls.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dialer -> dealer, dialed, diaper calls.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/calls <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> calls.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/sm.puri.Calls.desktop calls.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/3b/ae50ad2c9092663aedb0e1359d227ba33becc3 ../../../../usr/lib64/calls/plugins/ofono/libofono.so calls.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary calls warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. calls-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/calls <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- calls: /usr/lib64/calls/plugins/dummy/libdummy.so calls: /usr/lib64/calls/plugins/mm/libmm.so Source checksums ---------------- https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/calls/-/archive/v0.1.4/calls-v0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3754256173a6a77a79c55cf5ae6887965ba972e0a95006e622e4cc488631e3a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3754256173a6a77a79c55cf5ae6887965ba972e0a95006e622e4cc488631e3a2 Requires -------- calls (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libebook-contacts-1.2.so.3()(64bit) libfolks.so.25()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgom-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgsound.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-0.0.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-0.0.so.0(LIBHANDY_0_0_0)(64bit) libmm-glib.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) calls-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): calls-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- calls: application() application(sm.puri.Calls.desktop) calls calls(x86-64) libdummy.so()(64bit) libmm.so()(64bit) metainfo() metainfo(sm.puri.Calls.appdata.xml) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/tel) calls-debuginfo: calls-debuginfo calls-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) calls-debugsource: calls-debugsource calls-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n calls Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Jared Smith from comment #5) > Please fix up the two small issues identified below, and then I will approve > the package. > > > Package Review > ============== > > Issues: > * License should be GPLv3+ AND MIT (due to license on > src/wayland/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml) > * Package should own all directories that it creates > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/calls/-/raw/master/calls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01392960-calls/calls-0.1.5-1.fc33.src.rpm Fixed the issues! Thank you for the review.
Your package is APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/calls
*** Bug 1757675 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***