Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/luigifab/2befcf27223049ee840fb4a4d1162dab/raw/b5a2457328905935aa3603c59d8875499901a0ec/awf-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2483/54652483/awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54652475 Description: It displays the various widget types provided by GTK in a single window allowing to see the visual effect of the applied theme. This package include the gtk3 version. Fedora Account System Username: luigifab Hello, I requesting a review for my first set of packages, and I need a sponsor. I'm the upstream developer and the packager. The program is available here: https://github.com/luigifab/awf-extended (v2.1) The current request contain the package the next release (v2.2). Thanks!
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Not used in Fedora. >%install >rm -rf %{buildroot} Don't do this. >%clean >rm -rf %{buildroot} Not used in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections >touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor >if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then > %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor; >fi These scriptlets have been obsolete in Fedora since F28 - the icon cache is now updated automatically. Remove these.
My bad... thank you! I updated my spec (in first message) and I rebuild packages. I'm surprised that rpmlint say nothing.
- Same as before: there is no 2.2.0 on Github to be downloaded. - Split you BR one per line: BuildRequires: gtk3-devel BuildRequires: gettext BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: autoconf BuildRequires: automake BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils - Not needed: %post update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime &> /dev/null || : update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : %postun update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime &> /dev/null || : update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Thanks for your review. Here are new links with your recommendations. Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/luigifab/2befcf27223049ee840fb4a4d1162dab/raw/a650929af4b30e567f4c530ffa5bd4ca18810e07/awf-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2246/55112246/awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55112245 The v2.2 is not yet released. I waiting the release date to publish it. I created a temporary repository with v2.2 sources: https://github.com/luigifab/rpm-tests/tree/master/gtk-awf With the futur archive: https://github.com/luigifab/rpm-tests/releases/download/v2.2.0/awf-2.2.0.tar.gz Yes, this is not exactly that you want. I will update the main repository 11/11/2020.
Package approved. You still need to find a sponsor. Package Review ============== 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. [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]: 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". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/awf-gtk3/review-awf-gtk3/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm awf-gtk3-debuginfo-2.2.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm awf-gtk3-debugsource-2.2.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm awf-gtk3.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-11-11 awf-gtk3.x86_64: W: no-documentation awf-gtk3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary awf-gtk3 awf-gtk3-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-11-11 awf-gtk3-debugsource.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-11-11 awf-gtk3.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-11-11 awf-gtk3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: awf-gtk3-2.2.0.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings.
Thank you very much! I see an interesting thing in the SHOULD list: "Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.". So I updated my work: Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/luigifab/2befcf27223049ee840fb4a4d1162dab/raw/f985d411ed283da78a6304712bd3b032f46ffe83/awf-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4822/55164822/awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55164815 Now, I hope to find a sponsor :)
Sorry for this not really usefull message, but I updated the main repo with 2.2.0 final. SPEC URL: https://github.com/luigifab/awf-extended/blob/v2.2.0/fedora-gtk3/awf-gtk3.spec
I read more docs, and thanks to Andy (in another package), I fixed many things for this package. There is a big mistake before, because I did not publish awf-gtk3-2.2.0.tar.gz but only awf-2.2.0.tar.gz. So I fixed my spec file. What's new? - Source0 - Source1 - %{expand: ... } for %description - -n awf-%{version} for %setup and %autosetup - some configuration to build only with gtk3 in %build - msgfmt to create mo file in %install I updated the main repository. Spec URL: https://github.com/luigifab/awf-extended/raw/levelup/fedora-gtk3/awf-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3199/55673199/awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55673196 I hope it is better. Sorry for my multiple attempts.
Here is a new build with missing: - %license LICENSE - %doc README.md - Source2 Spec URL: https://github.com/luigifab/awf-extended/raw/levelup/fedora-gtk3/awf-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4734/55754734/awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55754733 I'm not gifted!
Here is new build without Source1/Source2 (Andy suggestion), but with a different source archive. Spec URL: https://github.com/luigifab/awf-extended/raw/levelup/fedora-gtk3/awf-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8917/55898917/awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55898863
Here is new build, I moved desktop file from debian-gtk3 to applications directory. Spec URL: https://github.com/luigifab/awf-extended/raw/levelup/fedora-gtk3/awf-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6341/56396341/awf-gtk3-2.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56396324
Sponsored + flag refresh
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/awf-gtk3
FEDORA-2021-f020f264e8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f020f264e8
FEDORA-2021-dc043c9e4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dc043c9e4e
FEDORA-2021-6afded56d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6afded56d5
FEDORA-2021-f020f264e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f020f264e8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f020f264e8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-6afded56d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6afded56d5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6afded56d5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-dc043c9e4e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-dc043c9e4e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dc043c9e4e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f020f264e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-dc043c9e4e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-6afded56d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.