Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/notekit/notekit.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/notekit/notekit-0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This program is a structured notetaking application based on GTK+ 3. Write your notes in instantly-formatted Markdown, organise them in a tree of folders that can be instantly navigated from within the program, and add hand-drawn notes by mouse, touchscreen or digitiser.
COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/notekit/build/1885524/ This is my first ever software packaged for Fedora, and thus the first ever SPEC file I wrote! Since, it has finally reached its first stable release!
This was* Just to be clear, I am a packager :P! This was just my first contribution in COPR!
- You should check the metainfo filein %install or %check: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml - And the desktop file: desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{uuid}.desktop - Install the file 'Charter license.txt' with %license in %files: %license LICENSE 'data/fonts/Charter license.txt' - Add the license breakdown aboe the License: field - Don't glob the entire directory: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/* instead: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{uuid}.* Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - 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. Note: License file Charter license.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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]: 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/notekit/review-notekit/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128(redeclipse, qmmp, keepassx, lammps- data, sxiv, xchm, qucs, klatexformula, freedroidrpg, flatcam, hicolor- icon-theme, yokadi, wesnoth-data, vacuum-im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps(redeclipse, qmmp, keepassx, lammps-data, sxiv, xchm, alsa-tools, qucs, klatexformula, freedroidrpg, flatcam, hicolor-icon-theme, yokadi, wesnoth-data, vacuum-im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable(qtl866, dxf2gcode, qmmp, keepassx, wdisplays, eom, autokey-common, pdfmod, qucs, tuxanci, klatexformula, freedroidrpg, fedora-logos, hicolor-icon-theme, lxqt- powermanagement, massif-visualizer, swappy), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(qtl866, dxf2gcode, qmmp, keepassx, wdisplays, eom, autokey-common, pdfmod, qucs, tuxanci, klatexformula, freedroidrpg, fedora-logos, hicolor-icon-theme, swappy, massif-visualizer) [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: notekit-0.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm notekit-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm notekit-debugsource-0.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm notekit-0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm notekit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) notetaking -> note taking, note-taking, notating notekit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US notetaking -> note taking, note-taking, notating notekit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist, organism, organize notekit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digitiser -> digitize notekit.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/notekit/data/latex /usr/share/clatexmath notekit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary notekit notekit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) notetaking -> note taking, note-taking, notating notekit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US notetaking -> note taking, note-taking, notating notekit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist, organism, organize notekit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digitiser -> digitize 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
> - You should check the metainfo filein %install or %check: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage > > appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml > > - And the desktop file: > > > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{uuid}.desktop Aha! I've added the BuildRequires but somehow forgot to execute the commands :P!
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi@lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/notekit/notekit.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi@lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/notekit/notekit-0.1-2.fc33.src.rpm - Removing the git-core dependency - Checking for the validity of the Desktop and Metainfo files - Adding a License breakdown - Marking the Charter License as a License - "Unglobing" the icons/hicolor folder
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/notekit
Hey Robert-André! So, due to the licensing issues with clatexmath (As I found that they even broke the GPL by rewriting a GPL project and relicensing it in MIT), I was unable to move forward. And considering how much this has taken and the inactivity of both clatexmath and jlatexmath, I have decided to take things in my own hands and to remove clatexmath as a dependency through bconds. I will update this bug shortly to send the new version of the specfile :). And since this is a modified version of the specfile, I am not sure whether you need or not to take a look at it. I will push it to repos at the end of the week if you don't have any objection. I hope not to inconvenience you with the problems that those two reviews may have caused you...
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/notekit/notekit.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/notekit/notekit-0.1-3.fc34.src.rpm - Adding conditional to enable/disable cLaTeXMath - Disabling cLaTeXMath by default due to licensing issues Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66445752
%build %if %{with clatexmath} %meson %else %meson -Dclatexmath=false %endif You can do it that way: %meson %{!?with_clatexmath:-Dclatexmath=false} See http://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html
Oh, sorry, I somehow missed this message in my e-mails! Glad I looked again, I was about to push :)! Thank you for the macro, quite handy, I will certainly add this :)! So, am I good to push? Or should I wait a bit more for a cLaTeXMath/jlatexmath answer?
Seems good to me.
FEDORA-2021-d528e516ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d528e516ba
FEDORA-2021-0f1c379ae3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0f1c379ae3
FEDORA-2021-0f1c379ae3 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-2021-0f1c379ae3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0f1c379ae3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-d528e516ba 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-d528e516ba \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d528e516ba See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-d528e516ba has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-0f1c379ae3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.