Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01299215-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01299215-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.2-1.wef.src.rpm Description: gjots2 ("gee-jots" or, if you prefer, "gyachts"!) is a way to marshall and organise your text notes in a convenient, hierarchical way. For example, use it for all your notes on Unix, personal bits and pieces, recipes and even PINs and passwords (encrypted with ccrypt(1), gpg(1) or openssl(1)). You can also use it to "mind-map" your compositions - write down all your thoughts and then start to organise them into a tree. By manipulating the tree you can easily reorder your thoughts and structure them appropriately. Fedora Account System Username: wef
Fixed some obvious errors: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01337305-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01337305-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.2-2.fc31.src.rpm
Fixed FSF address - that's a problem that creeps in when a package has been around nearly 20 years! SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01340097-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01340097-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.3-1.fc31.src.rpm
Woah, why the license on top of the spec file? If you added that yourself, please remove it. In Fedora, all spec files are implicitly licensed as MIT, and introducing a different license for one file would be annoying. URL: http://bhepple.freeshell.org/gjots → no https? Source0... → the same Summary: A note jotter. Organise your ideas, notes, facts in a hierarchy. → Summary fields shouldn't end in a dot. Maybe "A note jotter — organise your ideas, notes, facts in a hierarchy"
Re. license in spec file and the dot in Summary, please refer to the latest version. I can change the Source0 to https but not the homepage. Is that a problem?
(In reply to Bob Hepple from comment #4) > Re. license in spec file and the dot in Summary, please refer to the latest > version. Ah, OK. > I can change the Source0 to https but not the homepage. Is that a problem? HTTPS is not mandatory. If the webserver doesn't support https, then obviously using http or ftp is fine.
I'm not sure I haven't missed something, but once the issues I've found are fixed, I will check everything again. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text What this means is that you should declare COPYING to be a license file in your %files section (remove it from %doc): %license COPYING - The top entry in the changelog has the wrong date. Working late at night? - I'm not sure what's causing the validation error of the AppData file, when I run it locally there's no error and it's the same in koji and mock. That being said, the specification has changed and the AppData file should be named gjots2.metainfo.xml and placed under /usr/share/metainfo/. Similarly, the <license> tag should now be <metadata_license>. A few tags that would be nice to have are <name>, <release> and <summary>. Also, <updatecontact> should be <update_contact>. - Some more comments in the sections below ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 74 files have unknown license. I think that the overall license should be GPLv2, since it is the stricter of the two, or (if you prefer) you could change everything to GPLv2+. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F The rpmlint output will help you locate the files that still list the wrong FSF address. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. "Thu Apr 17" should be either "Thu Apr 16" or "Fri Apr 17" [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]: 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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. There are several instances of British English, please change them to AE. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 389120 bytes in 11 files. You could create a gjots2-doc subpackage, but I don't think it's necessary. [ ]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python The following files contain "/usr/bin/env python3" shebang lines: gjots2-3.1.3/bin/gjots2 gjots2-3.1.3/bin/gjots2html.py gjots2-3.1.3/setup.py They should be changed to "/usr/bin/python3" (even though it's done automatically). The same goes for the shebang line in gjots2-3.1.3/uninstall.sh See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_multiple_python_runtimes and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines [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: [x]: 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. Why keep the man pages as ISO-8859-1 upstream and not UTF-8? [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: gjots2-3.1.3-1.fc33.noarch.rpm gjots2-3.1.3-1.fc33.src.rpm gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) organise -> organist, organism, organize gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g yachts gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US marshall -> Marshall, marshal, marshals gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist, organism, organize gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope gjots2.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://bhepple.freeshell.org/gjots <urlopen error [Errno 111] Connection refused> gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/docbook2gjots gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2docbook gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2html gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2org gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/org2gjots gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2html.py gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2org gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary org2gjots gjots2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) organise -> organist, organism, organize gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g yachts gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US marshall -> Marshall, marshal, marshals gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist, organism, organize gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope gjots2.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://bhepple.freeshell.org/gjots <urlopen error [Errno 111] Connection refused> gjots2.src:42: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 42) gjots2.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Apr 17 2020 <bob.hepple> - 3.1.3-1 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 22 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) organise -> organist, organism, organize gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g yachts gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US marshall -> Marshall, marshal, marshals gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist, organism, organize gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope gjots2.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://bhepple.freeshell.org/gjots <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/docbook2gjots gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2docbook gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2html gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2org gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/org2gjots gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2html.py gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2org gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary org2gjots gjots2.noarch: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/gjots2.appdata.xml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 13 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gjots2/gjots2-3.1.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 53cd252a1bda6beadab476ecf8258164436abc87f0bf8c53a3a63ef9afb25ce7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53cd252a1bda6beadab476ecf8258164436abc87f0bf8c53a3a63ef9afb25ce7 Requires -------- gjots2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh gtk3 gtksourceview4 python(abi) python3-gobject Provides -------- gjots2: application() application(gjots2.desktop) gjots2 metainfo() metainfo(gjots2.appdata.xml) python3.8dist(gjots2) python3dist(gjots2)
Created attachment 1679808 [details] gjots2.metainfo.xml Thanks for the review, Alexander. I've had a bit of a look at the appdata issue and it seems that most (if not all) applications (in f-31, at least) are still using appdata, not metainfo. Those which use metainfo seem to be fonts or other sorts of data. To compound my confusion, there are many applications (eg eog!) that have an appdata file in /usr/share/metainfo! There are also metainfo files in /usr/share/appdata - again they seem to be for fonts and other data files rather than programs!! So should it be appdata for programs and metainfo for fonts/data? Already my head is spinning! So I've done my best and converted it to metainfo per the spec at https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html and following the examples on my f-31 system but it just won't pass validation although 'xmlstarlet val' is happy with it: $ appstream-util validate-relax --nonet gjots2.metadata.xml gjots2.metadata.xml: No valid root node specified Any idea what might be wrong? If I can't fix this, I suggest we revert to the old appdata format - I'll be in good company like google-chrome, abiword and others ...
Oh wait ... the problem is the _filename_. If I call it org.gnome.gjots2.appdata.xml it's happy! Or org.gjots2.appdata.xml. Or gjots2.appdata.xml! But not gjots2.metadata.xml. I tried changing the <id> to gjots2 (so that the filename fits the pattern %{id}.metainfo.xml) but it still fails. Any more ideas? I'm tearing my hair here!
Hi Bob, For compatibility reasons, older files named xyz.appdata.xml and placed in /usr/share/appdats are still treated as valid by appstream-util. From the spec's page: Note Component metadata of type desktop-application as described in Section 2.2, “Desktop Applications” can be installed with an .appdata.xml extension as well for historical reasons. AppStream implementations will read the XML files as long as they end up in the right location on the filesystem. Legacy Path AppStream tools scan the /usr/share/appdata/ path for legacy compatibility as well. It should not be used anymore by new software though, even on older Linux distributions (like RHEL 7 and Ubuntu 16.04 LTS) the metainfo path is well supported. Support for the legacy path will likely be dropped completely with a future AppStream 1.0 release. When the specification for the <id> tag changed, a couple of upstream projects with which I was working at the time opted to use net.sourceforge.<project> as their tag, since the projects are hosted on sf.net. You could do the same, e.g. <id>net.sourceforge.gjots2</id> or use the gjots2 home page domain, if you think it will be around for the foreseeable future: <id>org.freeshell.bhepple.gjots2</id> Did you happen to read https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Metadata.html#tag-id-generic ? Please note that the file should be named gjots2.appdata.xml or gjots2.metainfo.xml; gjots2.metadata.xml is not a valid name and appstream-util will refuse to validate it (it's not difficult to see why you got confused). You could also have the entire id string before metainfo.xml, e.g. net.sourceforge.gjots2.metainfo.xml. This is also "encouraged" for desktop files: https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ By the way, the "Encoding" key in your desktop file has been deprecated for quite some time. I hope all that helps.
Thank you so much Alexander! More insomnia coding on my behalf, the more I stared at it the less I grokked!! I think this one is now up to date with all the comments. Sorry for delay ... SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01341783-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01341783-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.4-1.fc31.src.rpm
Created attachment 1680099 [details] gjots2 screenshot showing block glyphs Hello Bob, Kudos for the work so far and especially with the AppStream metadata. As for the id tag, it needs to conform to the reverse-DNS scheme (this is copied from the link I gave you): "The ID must follow a reverse-DNS scheme, consisting of {tld}.{vendor}.{product}, for example org.kde.Gwenview or com.hugski.ColorHug2. Ownership of {vendor}.{tld} in the domain name system guarantees uniqueness of IDs." In other words, this should be one of the strings I have proposed or something similar, if you have a better idea. As for the "Encoding=UTF-8" key in gjots2.desktop, I think it's been over a decade that it was dropped from the specification, it's safe to lose it. Other issues: 1. Licensing Unless you want to add or remove the "or later" part everywhere in your upstream code, the package's license in the spec file should be GPLv2 and not GPLv2+, because the "effective license" in this case is GPLv2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ in your %files section, change %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog README doc/gjots2.gjots to %license COPYING %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README doc/gjots2.gjots 2. American English spelling There are several instances of "organise", that should be "organize". Oddly, the Cambridge Dictionary doesn't have "marshall", about which rpmlint complains, whereas Webster's lists it as an alternate spelling of "marshal". What's more odd, a couple of Australian online dictionaries do not consider it as valid. 3. When I run gjots2 and select "New", I get a series of block glyphs, as though I'm missing support for a specific language (see attachment). What are these? We're almost there!
%check desktop-file-install Is not good: You should either desktop-file-validate the specfile in %check, or desktop-file-install (which also validates as a side effect) from %install. Installing files from %check is dangerous, because in certain circumstances, %check can be skipped entirely. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage -------- sed -i -e 's@lib/gjots2@lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages/gjots2@g' setup.py Why is this actually needed? In what context does this change happen? Please, add a comment to the spec that explains this. -------- %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info Consider adding leading slash to ensure this remains a directory.
Thanks Alexander and Miro for useful input. I will need a few days to catch up with this (real life intervenes). In the meantime and now that we've got metainfo more or less working, do you know if it's actually used? I tried sway and gnome but they don't appear to access the file. Nor does dnfdragora. Having totally bogus entries in it does not appear to upset rpm. So - where is it actually used?
When the software repositories are created, the contents of those file are scrapped/loaded to a central place and than offered as metadata for e.g. GNOME software. You could probably somehow reproduce locally (although I have never actually tried this and the instructions are not complete): 1. put the built rpms into an empty directory 2. run createrpo over them to create a DNF repository 3. run appstream-builder to extract the appdata 4. run modifyrepo to merge the appdata to the repo metadata 5. add a repo file to your system with file:// URL 6. see GNOME software However, I don't know all the command line options and switches to use. There is an easier way. Build the package in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/ -> it will give you a repository with appdata.
Thanks for the explanation, Miro. At least it makes sense now.
Hello again! Having dug out from the immediate real life time sinks I've been able to pick this up again. New build below addressing all the points raised so far (I believe). Alexander - I can't replicate your block icon problem on my system. Do you have anything in your ~/.gjotsfile ?? What is your locale? Mine is LC_ALL=en_AU.utf8 and LANG=C. SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01362427-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01362427-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.5-1.fc31.src.rpm
Oh! Miro - sorry, I didn't quite understand this one: > %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info > Consider adding leading slash to ensure this remains a directory. %{python3_sitelib} expands to /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages - surely it always has a leading slash?
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
Hello Bob, Good job with all the changes! (In reply to Bob Hepple from comment #16) > Alexander - I can't replicate your block icon problem on my system. Do you > have anything in your ~/.gjotsfile ?? What is your locale? Mine is > LC_ALL=en_AU.utf8 and LANG=C. I don't have LANG defined, but everything else is en_US.UTF-8 and the .gjotsfile was empty. In the meantime I've moved to Fedora 32 and with your latest changes, I didn't get these blocks, so we can chalk it off as gremlins I guess. When I tried to launch gjots2 in F32 I noticed that I was getting the generic executable icon and not the png in /usr/share/pixmaps. In the desktop file you have "Icon=gjots2", but the file is called gjots.png. According to the specification, it shouldn't have worked before and I don't know why it did, but you should rename the image to gjots2.png. When I renamed the file I did get the right icon. My bad, I didn't think twice about that when I saw it before. By the way, with HiDPI/4K displays becoming commonplace (I still don't have one) graphics are growing huge these days. If you ever need any help creating a higher resolution icon, I'm sure that you can ask on the design team's mailing list and someone should be able to help you - there are a lot of talented people working on Fedora. Just add the trailing slash, rename the icon file and we're good to go. Thanks again Miro!
egg-info is a file in this package, not a directory so I am not giving it a trailing slash after all. Here is the latest build: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01363503-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01363503-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.6-1.fc31.src.rpm Cheers and thanks again for the reviews!
> egg-info is a file in this package, not a directory so I am not giving it a trailing slash after all. Oh, in that case, maybe BuildRequires: python3-setuptools is not needed, becasue setuptools create a directory. Let me check...
Yes, the setup.py has: from distutils.core import setup No, setuptools.
Yup, it builds fine without python3-setuptools. *Sigh* One more little thing to do and we can put this behind us…
Here we go: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01365851-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01365851-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.6-2.fc31.src.rpm
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. [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]: 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]: 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 378880 bytes in 10 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 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). [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]: 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: gjots2-3.1.6-2.fc33.noarch.rpm gjots2-3.1.6-2.fc33.src.rpm gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g yachts gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2html.py gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2org gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary org2gjots gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g yachts gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag gjots2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g yachts gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope gjots2.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://bhepple.freeshell.org/gjots <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2html.py gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2org gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary org2gjots 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.sourceforge.net/gjots2/gjots2-3.1.6.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 475f49823a1b5a57ee8338c161570d19391e1cbfdc6fe30e2e18e9a7c953f89f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 475f49823a1b5a57ee8338c161570d19391e1cbfdc6fe30e2e18e9a7c953f89f Requires -------- gjots2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 gtk3 gtksourceview4 python(abi) python3-gobject Provides -------- gjots2: application() application(gjots2.desktop) gjots2 metainfo() metainfo(gjots2.metainfo.xml) python3.8dist(gjots2) python3dist(gjots2) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1823599 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Everything looks good, package is approved!
Thanks everyone!! I've kicked off the un-retire process.
FEDORA-2020-19e53d3ab0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-19e53d3ab0
FEDORA-2020-e75c278601 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e75c278601
FEDORA-2020-19e53d3ab0 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-19e53d3ab0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-19e53d3ab0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e75c278601 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e75c278601 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e75c278601 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e75c278601 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-19e53d3ab0 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-239a92e692 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-239a92e692
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bfe11ae0b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bfe11ae0b
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-239a92e692 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-239a92e692 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bfe11ae0b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bfe11ae0b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.