Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/nwg-wrapper/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04598636-nwg-wrapper/nwg-wrapper.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/nwg-wrapper/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04598636-nwg-wrapper/nwg-wrapper-0.1.2-1.20220703gitb186a82.fc37.src.rpm Description: A GTK3 wrapper to display text on the desktop (for wlroots) Fedora Account System Username: wef
Some minor issue which need to be fixed: 1: nwg-wrapper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 nwg-wrapper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 2: Please update to latest v0.1.3. 3: Maybe we should add deps recommended by upstream - python3-i3ipc and wlr-randr? --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [x] = Manual review needed ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: 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 Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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. [!]: 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. [-]: %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) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 nwg-wrapper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 nwg-wrapper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 nwg-wrapper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nwg-wrapper nwg-wrapper.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/config/timezones.css /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/config/date-wttr.css 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nwg-piotr/nwg-wrapper/archive/b186a827404eb2c5e4d757bf122d5d74521b7dcd/nwg-wrapper-b186a827404eb2c5e4d757bf122d5d74521b7dcd.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 02dad56315946414e75aa2031413a3f11497cf1062ef9c289561365f06942f67 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 02dad56315946414e75aa2031413a3f11497cf1062ef9c289561365f06942f67 Requires -------- nwg-wrapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 gtk-layer-shell gtk3 python(abi) python3-gobject python3.11dist(pygobject) Provides -------- nwg-wrapper: nwg-wrapper python3.11dist(nwg-wrapper) python3dist(nwg-wrapper) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2104366 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, Java, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review, Artem. Here is the new package: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/nwg-wrapper/fedora-36-x86_64/05072210-nwg-wrapper/nwg-wrapper.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/nwg-wrapper/fedora-36-x86_64/05072210-nwg-wrapper/nwg-wrapper-0.1.3-1.fc36.src.rpm
1. As for: nwg-wrapper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 nwg-wrapper.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 We must remove env shebangs in Fedora, here is common workarounds https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries This is not a bug which should be fixed upstream, just proper way to package in Fedora. 2. If python3-i3ipc and wlr-randr deps optional we can add them as weak deps. Didn't tested this for nwg-wrapper though: Requires: python3-i3ipc Requires: wlr-randr -> Recommends: python3-i3ipc Recommends: wlr-randr 3. nwg-wrapper.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.3 ['0.1.3-1.fc38', '0.1.3-1'] Need to be fixed. Also you can switch if you wish to rpmautospec [1] later for make updating package easier. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec --- Please fix all this minor issues before before import. Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [x]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: 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 Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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. [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) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 nwg-wrapper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nwg-wrapper nwg-wrapper.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.3 ['0.1.3-1.fc38', '0.1.3-1'] nwg-wrapper.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/config/timezones.css /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/nwg_wrapper/config/date-wttr.css 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nwg-piotr/nwg-wrapper/archive/v0.1.3/nwg-wrapper-0.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7d14b53bde012eed5de9d0480b31179466f473daf87202a0245a652eefba3812 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d14b53bde012eed5de9d0480b31179466f473daf87202a0245a652eefba3812 Requires -------- nwg-wrapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 gtk-layer-shell gtk3 python(abi) python3-gobject python3-i3ipc python3.11dist(pygobject) wlr-randr Provides -------- nwg-wrapper: nwg-wrapper python3.11dist(nwg-wrapper) python3dist(nwg-wrapper) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2104366 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nwg-wrapper
Thanks again, Artem. I've folded those changes in as you advised and committed the new package. It's building now.
FEDORA-2022-4bef31364f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4bef31364f
FEDORA-2022-4bef31364f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-bd8f636321 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bd8f636321
FEDORA-2022-bd8f636321 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-bd8f636321 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bd8f636321 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-bd8f636321 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.