Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher-1.5.7-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Change a folder colour Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux
Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc39.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6506225 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2213540-folder-color-switcher/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06506225-folder-color-switcher/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
fedora-review-service-build
Created attachment 1993063 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6506225 to 6507971
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6507971 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2213540-folder-color-switcher/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06507971-folder-color-switcher/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Public domain GNU General Public License, Version 3". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2213540-folder-color- switcher/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/folder-color- switcher(mint-x-icons, mint-y-icons) [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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: Test run failed [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc40.noarch.rpm folder-color-switcher-nemo-1.5.9-1.fc40.noarch.rpm folder-color-switcher-caja-1.5.9-1.fc40.noarch.rpm folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpbbkm9pf0')] checks: 31, packages: 4 folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/caja-python/extensions/caja-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/nemo-python/extensions/nemo-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 folder-color-switcher.noarch: W: no-documentation folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: W: no-documentation folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 3 folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/caja-python/extensions/caja-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/nemo-python/extensions/nemo-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: W: no-documentation folder-color-switcher.noarch: W: no-documentation folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- http://packages.linuxmint.com/pool/main/f/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher_1.5.9.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ec4e0c27e0ee00db409ad1b81defeb4856de446035fa835e27d7e97b1fb3e651 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ec4e0c27e0ee00db409ad1b81defeb4856de446035fa835e27d7e97b1fb3e651 Requires -------- folder-color-switcher (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3 folder-color-switcher-nemo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): folder-color-switcher nemo-python folder-color-switcher-caja (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): folder-color-switcher python-caja Provides -------- folder-color-switcher: folder-color-switcher folder-color-switcher-nemo: folder-color-switcher-nemo folder-color-switcher-caja: folder-color-switcher-caja Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2213540 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, C/C++, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Python, Java, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comment: a) There seems to be a signing key: http://packages.linuxmint.com/pool/main/f/folder-color-switcher/folder-color-switcher_1.5.9.dsc Can this be used for verification? b) Koji build: folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc39.src.rpm
> Comment: > a) There seems to be a signing key: > http://packages.linuxmint.com/pool/main/f/folder-color-switcher/folder-color- > switcher_1.5.9.dsc > Can this be used for verification? The .dsc file isn't a signature, it only has the checksum. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > b) Koji build: > folder-color-switcher-1.5.9-1.fc39.src.rpm Do you mean do a scratch build? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107285782 These error warnings seem bogus to me. folder-color-switcher-caja.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/caja-python/extensions/caja-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 folder-color-switcher-nemo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/nemo-python/extensions/nemo-folder-color-switcher.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 1: I could make them executable to fix but using 755 perms seems overkill considering they work fine with 644 perms. 2: I could remove the python shebang, that seems a pointless exercise just to appease rpmlint.
Sorry, did do a koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283775 You may consider removing the shebangs on import. Approved. Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242806 would be appreciated if time allows. Fixing a few things with tests upstream. Can let you know when ready.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/folder-color-switcher
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #9) > Sorry, did do a koji build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283775 > > You may consider removing the shebangs on import. > > Approved. Thank you for the review. > > Review of: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242806 > would be appreciated if time allows. Fixing a few things with tests upstream. > Can let you know when ready. I have assigned the review to me, let me know once it's ready.