Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-6.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Manage online accounts and connected applications. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80150655
Note: This is a re-review of a retired package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts
Interesting, updating the spec to the following it will build successfully, without the sed cli command: ___ # remove the specified stock icon from appdata (invalid in libappstream-glib) # sed -i '/icon type="stock"/d' %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/metainfo/%{plug_rdnn}.appdata.xml %check appstreamcli validate \ %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/metainfo/%{plug_rdnn}.appdata.xml ___ Regardless, looks good. Should generate a patch to remove the specified stock icon from appdata and open an issue upsteam or change to above mentioned.
Would also recommend swopping the following two lines in the spec file's %files section to make them follow alphabetical order as they are on the filesystem. Example: ___ %{_datadir}/metainfo/%{plug_rdnn}.appdata.xml %{_libdir}/switchboard/%{plug_type}/lib%{plug_name}.so ___
> Interesting, updating the spec to the following it will build successfully, without the sed cli command: Yeah, that's because appstreamcli is less restrictive than appstream-util when validating files. In particular, appstream-util (from appstream-glib) only recognises a hard-coded list of "stock icons", and some switchboard plugs use icons that are not on that "good list". However, since now all (?) AppStream consumers in Fedora have switched away from appstream-glib to appstream, that mandatory verification will probably change, too; see: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1053 > Should generate a patch to remove the specified stock icon from appdata In this case, using a patch instead of sed is very annoying, because the environment of the changed line includes the latest version, so that patch would need to be re-generated for every version. And since the "sed" command doesn't modify lines, but only deletes one line (and the appdata validation would fail if something went wrong), I think using the simple sed script instead of a patch is justified. > and open an issue upsteam or change to above mentioned. As I said, it's not really an issue with upstream, but rather, the stock icon doesn't appear on appstream-glib's "good list": https://github.com/hughsie/appstream-glib/issues/360 And since no application uses appstream-glib for reading AppData any longer, that issue will go away soon, regardless. > Would also recommend swopping the following two lines Good point. Done. Updated files with same URLs.
Thanks Christopher, you made some good points! I'll take over this review since you aren't (yet) a packager. I found one issue (also reported by rpmlint below): - Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/mo These should be owned by filesystem, but aren't. I sent an email to the devel list about this issue. fedora-review output: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Reviewer note: Pulled in by vala - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Reviewer note: This package is orphaned, so a re-review is necessary. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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". 427 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2033886-switchboard-plug- onlineaccounts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/mo, /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/mo [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. [x]: 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 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]: 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 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 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: [x]: 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: 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. Rpmlint (manually) ------------------- switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/switchboard/network/libonline-accounts.so-6.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/switchboard/network/libonline-accounts.so-6.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/locale/te/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo /usr/share/locale/ast/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo:/usr/share/locale/az/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo:/usr/share/locale/bn/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo:/usr/share/locale/lo/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo:/usr/share/locale/ml/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo:/usr/share/locale/sw/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/locale/rue/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo /usr/share/locale/en_AU/LC_MESSAGES/online-accounts-plug.mo switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/bc/f36d501d9f402eaa52ec79df8861bc531dda8c ../../../.build-id/bc/f36d501d9f402eaa52ec79df8861bc531dda8c ==== 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 2.6 s ==== Unversioned so-files -------------------- switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts: /usr/lib64/switchboard/network/libonline-accounts.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elementary/switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts/archive/6.3.0/switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-6.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b8b7e8f9afe937afe3e1fdb77ad73d4cff311534338c86d266a7bae306c8ff71 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b8b7e8f9afe937afe3e1fdb77ad73d4cff311534338c86d266a7bae306c8ff71 Requires -------- switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libcamel-1.2.so.63()(64bit) libedataserver-1.2.so.26()(64bit) libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgranite.so.6()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-1.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-1.so.0(LIBHANDY_1_0)(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libswitchboard-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) switchboard(x86-64) switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts: metainfo() metainfo(io.elementary.switchboard.onlineaccounts.appdata.xml) switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts(x86-64) switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libonline-accounts.so-6.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debuginfo(x86-64) switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debugsource: switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debugsource switchboard-plug-onlineaccounts-debugsource(x86-64)
Thanks for the review! > - Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/mo Yeah, I know about this. Still, as you noted, there are probably hundreds of existing packages that are hit by similar problems for other deprecated langcodes as well, so I don't think the review should be blocked on basis of this problem (since it's not exactly a problem in this package, but either with "filesystem" or with upstream / ubuntu, which use deprecated langcodes). > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Right, this package doesn't contain any C code, it only has Vala, which is transpiled to C, and the Vala compiler already pulls in gcc as a dependency. > Note: A package with this name already exists Yup, this is why I explicitly mentioned this fact in Comment 2 . I'll go through the necessary steps for un-retirement after the re-review.
These issues were found by fedora-review, my notes were meant to say "it's fine". :) > Yeah, I know about this. Still, as you noted, there are probably hundreds of existing packages that are hit by similar problems for other deprecated langcodes as well, so I don't think the review should be blocked on basis of this problem (since it's not exactly a problem in this package, but either with "filesystem" or with upstream / ubuntu, which use deprecated langcodes). Since you're a provenpackager, and I agree with your point, I'll approve the package!
Thanks! I alsmo commented on your devel list thread. The issue with "mo" translation files has been around for almost a decade ... Unretirement request: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10506
Built for all current branches of Fedora.