Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/ffmpegthumbs.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/ffmpegthumbs-22.12.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: KDE ffmpegthumbnailer service. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
This appears to be a C++ application. It must build require gcc-c++. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/#_buildrequires_and_requires ================================================================================ `%license LICENSES/*` picks up two license files, GPL-2.0-or-later.txt and BSD-3-Clause.txt. Checking upstream the BSD-licensed file is a cmake file that isn't shipped in this package, so it should not be included. As far as I can tell the license field is correct, this is just about the license files that are included in the package. ================================================================================ This package installs a .desktop file. It must install it with desktop-file-install (in %install) or validate it with desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install). This also means adding a build requirement for desktop-file-utils. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files ================================================================================ /usr/share/config.kcfg and /usr/share/qlogging-categories5 are created by this package, but not owned by it. Those directories must be listed in %files, or this package must require another package that owns those directories (perhaps kf5-filesystem). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ ================================================================================ This package install a .metainfo.xml file. It must validate it with appstream-util (in %check or %install). This also means adding a build requirement for libappstream-glib. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #1) > This appears to be a C++ application. It must build require gcc-c++. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ > #_buildrequires_and_requires > > ============================================================================= > === > > `%license LICENSES/*` picks up two license files, GPL-2.0-or-later.txt and > BSD-3-Clause.txt. Checking upstream the BSD-licensed file is a cmake file > that isn't shipped in this package, so it should not be included. As far as > I can tell the license field is correct, this is just about the license > files that are included in the package. > > ============================================================================= > === > > This package installs a .desktop file. It must install it with > desktop-file-install (in %install) or validate it with desktop-file-validate > (in %check or %install). This also means adding a build requirement for > desktop-file-utils. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files > This is not a normal desktop file, and is not installed in /usr/share/applications, so it doesn't qualify for validation, IMO. > ============================================================================= > === > > /usr/share/config.kcfg and /usr/share/qlogging-categories5 are created by > this package, but not owned by it. Those directories must be listed in > %files, or this package must require another package that owns those > directories (perhaps kf5-filesystem). > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_file_and_directory_ownership > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ > Fixed. > ============================================================================= > === > > This package install a .metainfo.xml file. It must validate it with > appstream-util (in %check or %install). This also means adding a build > requirement for libappstream-glib. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ > #_app_data_validate_usage Fixed. I've updated the spec and SRPM in place.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #1) > > This appears to be a C++ application. It must build require gcc-c++. > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ > > #_buildrequires_and_requires > > Also fixed this too. :)
> This is not a normal desktop file, and is not installed in /usr/share/applications, so it doesn't qualify for validation, IMO. The guidelines don't list the path as a criteria for requiring validation. The criteria is "any application which draws an X window and runs from within that window". If this app draws windows, run desktop-file-validate, otherwise don't worry about it. For whatever it's worth, fedora-review is what flagged this. If there is some path limits to be imposed on the check that would be a good addition to fedora-review. The only only thing is the extra license file, that didn't get fixed yet. -%license LICENSES/* +%license LICENSES/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #4) > > This is not a normal desktop file, and is not installed in /usr/share/applications, so it doesn't qualify for validation, IMO. > > The guidelines don't list the path as a criteria for requiring validation. > The criteria is "any application which draws an X window and runs from > within that window". If this app draws windows, run desktop-file-validate, > otherwise don't worry about it. For whatever it's worth, fedora-review is > what flagged this. If there is some path limits to be imposed on the check > that would be a good addition to fedora-review. > Yeah, this probably needs to be constrained to desktop files installed into /usr/share/applications, because a lot of things use .desktop and aren't desktop files in other parts of the file tree :/ > The only only thing is the extra license file, that didn't get fixed yet. > > -%license LICENSES/* > +%license LICENSES/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt Fixed, though ehh...
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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. [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 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [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. [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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [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.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpegthumbs
FEDORA-2022-ff529d2e21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ff529d2e21
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-293626ef94 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-293626ef94
FEDORA-2022-0f9a17cb79 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0f9a17cb79
FEDORA-2022-ff529d2e21 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0f9a17cb79 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-293626ef94 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.