Spec URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/screenkey.spec SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/screenkey-1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Tool to screencast keys Fedora Account System Username: rajeeshknambiar
>%description >A screencast tool to display your keys, featuring: >Several keyboard translation methods >Key composition/input method support >[...] Add some bullet points before the lines, - like - this or, alternatively, * like * this >%files >%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop You should add "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" and validate the desktop entry, either at end of %install or in %check. $ desktop-file-validate $PATH_TO_FILE https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage >%files >%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info This will break once Python 3.10 lands in Fedora.
Many thanks for the review, Artur. Addressed all 3 comments. Revised spec and SRPM available at following locations: Spec URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/screenkey.spec SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/screenkey-1.2-2.fc32.src.rpm
The package fails to install: >nothing provides python3-gojbect needed by screenkey-1.2-2.fc34.noarch This is probably a typo: "gojbect" -> "gobject" There are gettext translation files (.po) included in the package. They are compiled to .mo files during %build, but not installed in %install. Consider either doing that manually in the RPM spec, or patching the setup.py script (sorry, I don't really know what to do there, so I can't give a ready solution).
> There are gettext translation files (.po) included in the package. They are compiled to .mo files during %build, but not installed in %install. Consider either doing that manually in the RPM spec, or patching the setup.py script (sorry, I don't really know what to do there, so I can't give a ready solution). A quick drive-by on this. I think translation files are covered here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_handling_locale_files
Thanks for catching the issues and providing locale guidelines. I have checked Arch and Debian packages and they seem to ignore/remove the mo files. I have also tried to patch the source to install the generated mo files (adding a MANIFEST.in, patching the data_files in setup.py) but didn't succeed. Also commented in upstream issue tracker: https://gitlab.com/screenkey/screenkey/-/issues/123 For now, I'm manually copying the files over during `install` phase. Please suggest if there are better ways to do this. Also added some missing BuildRequires, Requires and a couple of Recommends packages. Spec URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/screenkey.spec SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/screenkey-1.2-3.fc32.src.rpm
Based on the upstream comment in https://gitlab.com/screenkey/screenkey/-/issues/123, running %install _without_ --skip-build indeed installs the mo files correctly. But that flag is set by %{py3_install} macro and I didn't find a way to unset it. Is: %install python3 setup.py install -O1 --root %{buildroot} allowed in place of %install %{py3_install} ?
Looking forward to this one hitting the repos
(In reply to Rajeesh from comment #6) > Based on the upstream comment in > https://gitlab.com/screenkey/screenkey/-/issues/123, running %install > _without_ --skip-build indeed installs the mo files correctly. But that flag > is set by %{py3_install} macro and I didn't find a way to unset it. > > Is: > > %install > python3 setup.py install -O1 --root %{buildroot} > > allowed in place of > > %install > %{py3_install} > > ? Looks okay currently. Package approved. 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/screenkey/review-screenkey/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 30720 bytes in 2 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 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 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: screenkey-1.2-3.fc34.noarch.rpm screenkey-1.2-3.fc34.src.rpm screenkey.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screencast -> screen cast, screen-cast, screenshot screenkey.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screencast -> screen cast, screen-cast, screenshot screenkey.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary screenkey screenkey.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screencast -> screen cast, screen-cast, screenshot screenkey.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screencast -> screen cast, screen-cast, screenshot 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/screenkey
FEDORA-2020-894372fefc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-894372fefc
FEDORA-2020-02ebdb57ae has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-02ebdb57ae
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-783976c7d1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-783976c7d1
Thanks for the reviews, Artur and Robert-André!
FEDORA-2020-02ebdb57ae 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-2020-02ebdb57ae \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-02ebdb57ae See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-894372fefc 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-2020-894372fefc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-894372fefc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-783976c7d1 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-2020-783976c7d1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-894372fefc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-02ebdb57ae has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-783976c7d1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.