Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/ibotty/j4-dmenu-desktop-rpm-spec/-/blob/main/j4-dmenu-desktop.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/ibotty/j4-dmenu-desktop-rpm-spec/-/raw/spec-file/j4-dmenu-desktop-2.18-1.fc33.src.rpm?inline=false Description: j4-dmenu-desktop is a replacement for i3-dmenu-desktop. It's purpose is to find .desktop files and offer you a menu to start an application using dmenu. Since r2.7 j4-dmenu-desktop doesn't require i3wm anymore and should work just fine on about any desktop environment. You can also execute shell commands using it. Fedora Account System Username: ibotty
> $ rpmlint . > 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- Please give your archive a better name: Source0: https://github.com/enkore/%{name}/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Don't gzip the man page yourself, it is handled by rpm: gzip < %{name}.1 > %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz - The license file must be installed with %license not %doc: %files %license LICENSE
Thank you for the review! I fixed all things I could fix. Unfortunately, I don't control upstream, so I cannot fix the source tarball name. I agree that this name is pretty bad.
New link to spec and SRPM. Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/ibotty/j4-dmenu-desktop-rpm-spec/-/raw/main/j4-dmenu-desktop.spec?inline=false SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/ibotty/j4-dmenu-desktop-rpm-spec/-/raw/spec-file/j4-dmenu-desktop-2.18-2.fc33.src.rpm?inline=false
(In reply to Tobias Florek from comment #3) > Thank you for the review! > > I fixed all things I could fix. > > Unfortunately, I don't control upstream, so I cannot fix the source tarball > name. I agree that this name is pretty bad. Github support passing the filename you want after the last / in the url Source0: https://github.com/enkore/%{name}/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - why cat and not just cp or install -pm 0644 here: cat %{name}.1 > %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 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 v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/j4-dmenu-desktop/review-j4-dmenu- desktop/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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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: 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]: 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 ===== 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: j4-dmenu-desktop-2.18-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm j4-dmenu-desktop-debuginfo-2.18-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm j4-dmenu-desktop-debugsource-2.18-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm j4-dmenu-desktop-2.18-2.fc33.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Oh, I did not know that you could get it by a different filename. That's neat. I fixed it as well as the (slight not as) useless use of cat. Thanks you! > [?]: Package functions as described. I will note, that I have been using that package daily since November, so it works for me. New Spec File (same URL as above): https://gitlab.com/ibotty/j4-dmenu-desktop-rpm-spec/-/raw/main/j4-dmenu-desktop.spec?inline=false
Package approved but you still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Sponsored + refreshing flag.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/j4-dmenu-desktop
FEDORA-2021-9cb3f46ded has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9cb3f46ded
FEDORA-2021-6fe42e6a2c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6fe42e6a2c
FEDORA-2021-9cb3f46ded 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-2021-9cb3f46ded \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9cb3f46ded See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-6fe42e6a2c 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-2021-6fe42e6a2c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6fe42e6a2c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-6fe42e6a2c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-9cb3f46ded has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.