Spec URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/x-tile/x-tile.spec SRPM URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/x-tile/x-tile-3.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: X-tile is an application that allows you to select a number of windows and tile them in different ways. X-tile works on any X desktop (GNOME, KDE, XFCE, LXDE...). The main features are: many tiling geometries, undo tiling, invert tiling order, optional system tray docking and menu, filter to avoid listing some windows, filter to check some windows by default, command line interface. Fedora Account System Username: melmorabity Note: this package was retired during F32 development last year (no Python 3 support at this time). The latest release of X-tile now supports Python 3.
>Requires: gtk3%{_isa} >BuildArch: noarch Having an %{_isa} dependency in a noarch package will produce a package with a dependency on gtk3.BUILDARCH, where BUILDARCH is the architecture of the builder machine. So you'll end up with a "noarch" package that has a dependency on, for example, gtk3.x86_64, and in effect can't be installed on anything other than x86_64.
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #1) > Having an %{_isa} dependency in a noarch package will produce a package with > a dependency on gtk3.BUILDARCH, where BUILDARCH is the architecture of the > builder machine. So you'll end up with a "noarch" package that has a > dependency on, for example, gtk3.x86_64, and in effect can't be installed on > anything other than x86_64. Good catch, this is fixed: Spec URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/x-tile/x-tile.spec SRPM URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/x-tile/x-tile-3.1-2.fc32.src.rpm
- Add a Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/x-tile See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/x-tile/review-x-tile/licensecheck.txt [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: 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: x-tile-3.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm x-tile-3.1-2.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3) > - Add a Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories > > Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. Thanks for your review :). This will be fixed before import ;)
FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5
FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5
FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 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-2020-1eec26d4f5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-e9de2f9ec5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.