Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04460431-darkman/darkman.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04460431-darkman/darkman-1.3.1-0.1.20220531gitc265698.fc37.src.rpm Description: Framework for dark-mode and light-mode transitions on Linux desktop Fedora Account System Username: linkdupont Fedora Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04460431-darkman/fedora-review/
Here are some comments. - Please use `-p` for all of your install invocations. - You should replace the glob in `%{_bindir}/*` in %files - You need to run the systemd user scriptlets. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units. There's a couple issues with unowned or improperly owned directories. You might want to consult https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership. - `%{_mandir}/man1/` is wrong, as you don't want to own the whole directory. Just own the actual files (e.g. `%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*`). - Same with `%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/`. Both of these directories are already owned by filesystem, so we don't want to own them again here. > %{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/ - Replace the quoted line with something like this: ``` %dir %{_datadir}/zsh %dir %{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions %{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/_%{name} ``` It's necessary to own these directories here, because filesystem notably *doesn't* own them. - You probably want to do the same thing (ensure you own both top level directories) for the xdg-desktop-portals file. You can also require xdg-desktop-portals and only own the individual files, but this seems like an optional dependency to me. - You should require dbus-common which owns the dbus service directory and only own the specific file. > %global forgeurl https://gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman - You can remove this. %gometa should determine %forgeurl automatically. - I believe cobra also generates fish completions. You should be able to add `%{gobuilddir}/bin/darkman completion fish > darkman.fish`, add the appropriate `install` commands to %install, and add ``` %dir %{_datadir}/fish %dir %{_datadir}/fish/vendor_completions.d %{_datadir}/fish/vendor_completions.d/%{name}.fish ``` to %files.
Addressed the issues mentioned in comment #1. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-36-x86_64/04547230-darkman/darkman.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-36-x86_64/04547230-darkman/darkman-1.3.1-0.2.20220531gitc265698.fc36.src.rpm Description: Daemon for dark-mode and light-mode transitions on Linux desktop Fedora Account System Username: linkdupont Fedora Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-36-x86_64/04547230-darkman/fedora-review
All of your links 404
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04549744-darkman/darkman.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04549744-darkman/darkman-1.3.1-0.3.20220531gitc265698.fc37.src.rpm Description: Daemon for dark-mode and light-mode transitions on Linux desktop Fedora Account System Username: linkdupont Fedora Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/linkdupont/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04549744-darkman/fedora-review
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in darkman See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units You should add `%systemd_user_postun_with_restart darkamn.service`. This is erroneously absent from the packaging guidelines. You can fix this on import. ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git- repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2092180-darkman/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user, /usr/lib/systemd There directories are owned by systemd. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [....] The directory ownership here is correct. This package appropriately co-owns directories. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. %gobuild handles this. [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]: 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. [x]: 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 40960 bytes in 16 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- gitlab-whynothugo-darkman-devel [?]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman/-/archive/c2656986c24a7118146b92958c1063d195513c2f/darkman-c2656986c24a7118146b92958c1063d195513c2f.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 440e64d1de3513207b677cab630d436f4cade19874ce2f6bad5ee38fca34edb7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 440e64d1de3513207b677cab630d436f4cade19874ce2f6bad5ee38fca34edb7 Requires -------- darkman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh dbus-common libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) golang-gitlab-whynothugo-darkman-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/adrg/xdg) golang(github.com/godbus/dbus/v5) golang(github.com/godbus/dbus/v5/introspect) golang(github.com/godbus/dbus/v5/prop) golang(github.com/sj14/astral) golang(github.com/spf13/cobra) golang(github.com/spf13/viper) darkman-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): darkman-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- darkman: darkman darkman(x86-64) golang-gitlab-whynothugo-darkman-devel: golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman) golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman)(commit=c2656986c24a7118146b92958c1063d195513c2f) golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman/boottimer) golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman/boottimer)(commit=c2656986c24a7118146b92958c1063d195513c2f) golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman/geoclue) golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman/geoclue)(commit=c2656986c24a7118146b92958c1063d195513c2f) golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman/libdarkman) golang(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman/libdarkman)(commit=c2656986c24a7118146b92958c1063d195513c2f) golang-gitlab-whynothugo-darkman-devel golang-ipath(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman) golang-ipath(gitlab.com/WhyNotHugo/darkman)(commit=c2656986c24a7118146b92958c1063d195513c2f) darkman-debuginfo: darkman-debuginfo darkman-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) darkman-debugsource: darkman-debugsource darkman-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2092180 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> You should add `%systemd_user_postun_with_restart darkman.service` To be clear, you should add this under %postun. On import, don't forget to do the following: - [ ] Fix the systemd scriptlet issue. - [ ] Add package to release-monitoring.org - [ ] Add package to Koschei. - [ ] Give go-sig privileges on package - [ ] Close the review bug by referencing it in the rpm changelog and the Bodhi update. Thanks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/darkman
FEDORA-2022-7492e75eea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7492e75eea
FEDORA-2022-7492e75eea has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.