Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270-5.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: GTK-based IBM 3270 terminal emulator with many advanced features. It can be used to communicate with any IBM host that supports 3270-style connections over TELNET. Based on the original x3270 code, pw3270 was originally created for Banco do Brasil, and is now used worldwide. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270-5.3-2.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Do not remove buildroot on install - Make build output more verbose - Ensure build flags are applied
- Seems the main code is packaged under C, so add BR gcc: BuildRequires: gcc - Please remove the glob to own the entire directory: %{_datadir}/%{name}/ - /usr/share/appdata is obsolete, all appdata file should go to /usr/share/metainfo (%{_metainfodir}) pw3270.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/pw3270.appdata.xml Please correct this and consider sending a patch upstream (Location: https://github.com/PerryWerneck/pw3270/blob/master/branding/Makefile.in#L131 ) 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]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 144 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/pw3270/review- pw3270/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. [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 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 ===== 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pw3270-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm pw3270-debuginfo-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm pw3270-debugsource-5.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm pw3270-5.3-2.fc35.src.rpm pw3270.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pw3270 pw3270.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/pw3270.appdata.xml 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
I've filed https://github.com/PerryWerneck/pw3270/pull/20 to switch from appdata to metainfo and backported a patch. About %{_datadir}/%{name}/, the whole directory is owned by lib3270, which is already a dependency, so pw3270 just installs files in it. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270-5.3-3.fc33.src.rpm Changelog: - Update build requires - Convert from appdata to metainfo
Package approved.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo pw3270 1936264 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33071
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pw3270
Davide, why do you set completed reviews as MODIFIED instead of closing bugs? Doing so will make review-stats lists growing forever... it now appears that you have 142 open review requests! Please, make sure to close these tickets when you import your packages. I can't find where in the wiki is the right instruction, but usually: - close the bug as CURRENTRELEASE when you submit your package for current Fedora releases - close the bug as NEXTRELEASE when you submit your package only to rawhide - or just add the relevant bug id to the Bodhi update, either manually or by the rpm changelog ('fixes rhbz#123456') Thanks Mattia
Thanks! Usually I try to get the Bodhi update attached to take care of this, but it looks like I missed this one (and probably a few more). I'll go over my bugs and clean things up.