Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pkotvan/mypkgs/fedora-34-x86_64/02886159-scrot/scrot.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pkotvan/mypkgs/fedora-34-x86_64/02886159-scrot/scrot-1.6-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: scrot is a simple command line screen capture utility, it uses imlib2 to grab and save images. Fedora Account System Username: pkotvan
> URL: https://github.com/resurrecting-open-source-projects/%{name} > Source0: https://github.com/resurrecting-open-source-projects/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz You can use %{URL} as part of Source0 for brevity. > BuildRequires: libbsd-devel > BuildRequires: imlib2-devel > BuildRequires: libX11-devel > BuildRequires: libXext-devel > BuildRequires: libXcomposite-devel You can use pkgconfig to specify dependencies. This way, if a package gets renamed / split / merged, you won't be affected. i.e. "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(imlib2) pkgconfig(libbsd) pkgconfig(x11) pkgconfig(xext) pkgconfig(xcomposite)" > make %{?_smp_mflags} Try using "%make_build" instead. > %files > %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README.md scrot.png You need to add "%license COPYING" here.
I will do this review.
Thanks Artur for the notes. Issues from comment #1 should be fixed in: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pkotvan/mypkgs/fedora-34-x86_64/02890909-scrot/scrot.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pkotvan/mypkgs/fedora-34-x86_64/02890909-scrot/scrot-1.6-1.fc34.src.rpm Thanks Mirku for the the review.
fedora-review found just one nit-pick. Makefile use obsoleted macro: AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_CC_STDC found in: scrot-1.6/configure.ac:12 But I treat it as heads up for the future to fix later. I will not block review on this. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scrot See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [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 61440 bytes in 4 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 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 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I just tested x86_64 [!]: %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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. APPROVED
I added you to the packager group. Happy packaging.
FEDORA-2021-9731fc637a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9731fc637a
FEDORA-2021-9731fc637a 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-2021-9731fc637a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9731fc637a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-9731fc637a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.