Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/menulibre/menulibre.spec SOURCE1: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/menulibre/menulibre.appdata.xml Upstream Bug: https://github.com/bluesabre/menulibre/issues/61 SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/menulibre/menulibre-2.2.1-3.fc32.src.rpm Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50086730 Description: MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor. All fields specified in the FreeDesktop.org Desktop Entry and Menu specifications are available to quickly update. Additionally, MenuLibre provides an editor for the launcher actions used by applications such as Unity and Plank. Features: - A beautiful interface powered by the latest version of GTK+. - Create new launchers, or modify existing ones with complete control over common settings and access to advanced settings. - Add, remove, and adjust desktop actions: powerful shortcuts available used by Unity, Xfce, and Pantheon. - Easily rearrange menu items to suit your needs. Fedora Account System Username: lyessaadi Note: I am unretiring this package (I made some changes to the original spec file).
- You can glob this: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.svg - Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories - Try to use Fedora flag for %py3_install: %install CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-${RPM_LD_FLAGS}}" \ %{__python3} setup.py install --root=%{buildroot} rm -rfv /home/bob/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.x86_64/usr/bin/__pycache__ Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import. 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/menulibre/review-menulibre/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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 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. [-]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: menulibre-2.2.1-3.fc34.noarch.rpm menulibre-2.2.1-3.fc34.src.rpm menulibre.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Thank you for the quick review! I'll make sure to address all of these ;)! > - Try to use Fedora flag for %py3_install: > > %install > CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-${RPM_LD_FLAGS}}" \ > %{__python3} setup.py install --root=%{buildroot} > rm -rfv /home/bob/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.x86_64/usr/bin/__pycache__ Good idea! I tried using the standard method for building python packages, but all my attempts failed so miserably, that I just gave up and ended up using the same method as the old maintainer and totally forgot about build flags! (Also, I should try to avoid using `/home/bob` :P!)
Fixed specfile and SRPM uploaded (in fedorapeople.org)! You can take a look if you wish to be sure I fixed your issues ;).
Releng issue: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9724
LGTM! Happy building!
FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539
FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7
FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 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-2020-1b8a9123e7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 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-2020-592c9b2539 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.