Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/buttermanager.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/buttermanager-2.4.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: ButterManager is a BTRFS tool for managing snapshots, balancing filesystems and upgrading the system safely. Fedora Account System Username: salimma Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=70654173
Taking this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1003520 bytes in 18 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1975024-buttermanager/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable [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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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: buttermanager-2.4.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm buttermanager-2.4.1-1.fc35.src.rpm buttermanager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary buttermanager 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/egara/buttermanager/archive/2.4.1/buttermanager-2.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c5b3486c7433a4432326fee29ce29a03e131bf8b7c3211bc4775f159211dae8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c5b3486c7433a4432326fee29ce29a03e131bf8b7c3211bc4775f159211dae8 Requires -------- buttermanager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 btrfs-progs python(abi) python3.10dist(pyqt5) python3.10dist(pyyaml) Provides -------- buttermanager: application() application(buttermanager.desktop) buttermanager python3.10dist(buttermanager) python3dist(buttermanager) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1975024 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: R, Perl, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> Issues: > ======= > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- > file-validate if there is such a file. > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 1003520 bytes in 18 files. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_documentation These don't look like real issues for this app. Other than this, it looks good. PACKAGE APPROVED.
Will fix the desktop file installation when importing. For docs... yeah, this is borderline so I'll not split it yet. Thanks!
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35210
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/buttermanager
FEDORA-2021-2a52ddb9c0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2a52ddb9c0
FEDORA-2021-2a52ddb9c0 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-2021-2a52ddb9c0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2a52ddb9c0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f184f637ae 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-f184f637ae \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f184f637ae See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f184f637ae has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-2a52ddb9c0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.