Spec URL: https://happyassassin.net/reviews/xterm-console/xterm-console.spec SRPM URL: https://happyassassin.net/reviews/xterm-console/xterm-console-1.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: xterm-console runs an xterm that tries to look as much as possible like a console. It reads the current color configuration from the kernel, and the package includes copies of the system console fonts converted to the PCF format for xterm to use. Fedora Account System Username: adamwill
For the record, this thing exists for a fairly specific use case of openQA. We don't even use that use case in our own deployment of openQA ATM, but it's possible we may do in the future, third parties may want to do it on Fedora, and part of the openQA test suite actually expects it to be available, so having it packaged will save me having to patch those tests out of the openQA package build.
So I discovered, that, uh, no package actually owns /usr/share/X11/fonts? (xorg-x11-fonts-* owns the directories underneath it, but nothing owns that specifically) This made fedora-review flags up an unowned directory, so since you're also not installing xorg-x11-fonts-misc and just own the misc/ directory you probably should also own /usr/share/X11/fonts -- but if you could put up a PR to xorg-x11-fonts or filesystem that would be great. Apart from that, for Source you can use %{url} to make it shorter. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2049236-xterm-console/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/X11/fonts [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc(cmatrix-x11-fonts, xorg-x11-fonts-misc) [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]: 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 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 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 ===== 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. [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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/os-autoinst/xterm_console/archive/1.1/xterm_console-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14a691c2dec509d85632fbfc2149effc41425b09196b12f1113ce89ab632a2fb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14a691c2dec509d85632fbfc2149effc41425b09196b12f1113ce89ab632a2fb Requires -------- xterm-console (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 mkfontscale xterm Provides -------- xterm-console: xterm-console Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2049236 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Perl, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
xorg-x11-fonts-utils owns /usr/share/X11/fonts , but yeah, you could potentially have some fonts packages installed without that package installed, I think, so it can be unowned. I've updated the spec to own that directory, since the package doesn't require xorg-x11-fonts-utils . I think it should be good to go now. Thanks!
LGTM now, APPROVED
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xterm-console
All built now, thanks a lot!