Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/blueprint-compiler/blueprint-compiler.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/blueprint-compiler/blueprint-compiler-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: GtkBuilder XML format is quite verbose, and many app developers don't like using WYSIWYG editors for creating UIs. Blueprint files are intended to be a concise, easy-to-read format that makes it easier to create and edit GTK UIs. Internally, it compiles to GtkBuilder XML as part of an app's build system. It adds no new features, just makes the features that exist more accessible. Another goal is to have excellent developer tooling--including a language server--so that less knowledge of the format is required. Hopefully this will increase adoption of cool advanced features like GtkExpression. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89471786
Unofficial review: 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. [!]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 165 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/blueprint-compiler/2106919-blueprint- compiler/licensecheck.txt [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 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 ===== 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. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: blueprint-compiler : /usr/share/pkgconfig/blueprint-compiler.pc [-]: 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]: 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://gitlab.gnome.org/jwestman/blueprint-compiler/-/archive/v0.2.0/blueprint-compiler-v0.2.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74bb99161ba30abfc7302d2b3cbc400f05bcbda21ccb01c4b2e6f8f3f9874ca2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74bb99161ba30abfc7302d2b3cbc400f05bcbda21ccb01c4b2e6f8f3f9874ca2 Requires -------- blueprint-compiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/python3 python3-gobject-devel Provides -------- blueprint-compiler: blueprint-compiler pkgconfig(blueprint-compiler) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2106919 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Python, C/C++, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) License should be LGPLV3+ b) It may be helpful to package doc/examples.rst file with the documenation.
Aha, it's been a while since I packaged a new app, and I already forgot licensing :P! Thank you! For docs, I tried to generate them, but they needed a sphinx theme not available in Fedora. But, I guess that it would be useful to include the raw rst files.
Sphinx html ouptut is usually not included as it contains font files and javascript. Some of the rst files seem readable though.
Sure, but, they would go well in a -docs subpackage.
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/blueprint-compiler/blueprint-compiler.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/blueprint-compiler/blueprint-compiler-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Updating licence & including rst files as documentation. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89576791
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/blueprint-compiler/blueprint-compiler.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/blueprint-compiler/blueprint-compiler-0.2.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Adding manual byte compilation and follwing SPDX for the License Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91101874
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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 165 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2106919-blueprint- compiler/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 6 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: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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 [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/jwestman/blueprint-compiler]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: blueprint-compiler : /usr/share/pkgconfig/blueprint-compiler.pc [x]: 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]: 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://gitlab.gnome.org/jwestman/blueprint-compiler/-/archive/v0.2.0/blueprint-compiler-v0.2.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74bb99161ba30abfc7302d2b3cbc400f05bcbda21ccb01c4b2e6f8f3f9874ca2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74bb99161ba30abfc7302d2b3cbc400f05bcbda21ccb01c4b2e6f8f3f9874ca2 Requires -------- blueprint-compiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/python3 python3-gobject-devel Provides -------- blueprint-compiler: blueprint-compiler pkgconfig(blueprint-compiler) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2106919 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, R, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: > %build > %meson #-Ddocs=true > %meson_build Is that comment still there for any specific reason? It can probably be removed. ----- rpmlint flags this: blueprint-compiler.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/blueprint-compiler.pc But this seems to meet the criteria where putting *.pc in non-devel is acceptable. ----- blueprint-compiler.noarch: E: devel-dependency python3-gobject-devel Same as above. ----- Everything else looks good. Approved!
> Is that comment still there for any specific reason? It can probably be removed. Indeed, will do! > Everything else looks good. Approved! Thanks! Currently digging into fastfetch :P!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blueprint-compiler
FEDORA-2022-47fa821f92 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-47fa821f92
FEDORA-2022-f18f3a573d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f18f3a573d
FEDORA-2022-47fa821f92 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-2022-47fa821f92 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-47fa821f92 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f18f3a573d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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-f18f3a573d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f18f3a573d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f18f3a573d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-47fa821f92 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.