Spec URL: https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/fedora-pkg/raw/main/budgie-desktop-view/budgie-desktop-view.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/fedora-pkg/raw/main/budgie-desktop-view/budgie-desktop-view-1.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Official Budgie desktop icons application / implementation Fedora Account System Username: joshstrobl Note: Should be in repo before budgie-desktop as we perform (meson) configure-time validation of the existence of budgie-desktop-view
Taking this review.
> # Seems to ship /usr/lib/.build-id* otherwise > %define _build_id_links none Please remove this, as it breaks proper debuginfo subpackage generation.
Issue raised should now be addressed. Thanks for the quick review!
Another thing you should fix here: > URL: https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-desktop-view > Source0: https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-desktop-view/releases/download/v1.2/budgie-desktop-view-v1.2.tar.xz It should look like so: > URL: https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-desktop-view > Source0: %{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.xz This makes future version updates a lot less painful.
Dropping FE-NEEDSPONSOR as Josh is already sponsored.
Done!
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2086268-budgie-desktop- view/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]: 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 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]: 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 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). [x]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-desktop-view/releases/download/v1.2/budgie-desktop-view-v1.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8399fae4326e5a21dda889bd89cb16ed8201f2854dc5cbc12394b90420d4cf2e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8399fae4326e5a21dda889bd89cb16ed8201f2854dc5cbc12394b90420d4cf2e Requires -------- budgie-desktop-view (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glib2(x86-64) gtk3(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) budgie-desktop-view-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): budgie-desktop-view-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- budgie-desktop-view: application() application(org.buddiesofbudgie.budgie-desktop-view.desktop) budgie-desktop-view budgie-desktop-view(x86-64) budgie-desktop-view-debuginfo: budgie-desktop-view-debuginfo budgie-desktop-view-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) budgie-desktop-view-debugsource: budgie-desktop-view-debugsource budgie-desktop-view-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ngompa/2086268-budgie-desktop-view/srpm/budgie-desktop-view.spec 2022-05-15 22:35:40.772623164 -0400 +++ /home/ngompa/2086268-budgie-desktop-view/srpm-unpacked/budgie-desktop-view.spec 2022-05-15 17:08:40.000000000 -0400 @@ -10,5 +10,5 @@ License: ASL 2.0 URL: https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-desktop-view -Source0: %{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.xz +Source0: %{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.xz BuildRequires: pkgconfig(glib-2.0) >= %{glib2_version} Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2086268 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Java, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The only issue is an indentation issue in the spec file that's in the SRPM, which will be fixed on import of the proposed spec file anyway, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/budgie-desktop-view
Package is now in repositories, closing review.