Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06449226-gnome-shell-extension-forge/gnome-shell-extension-forge.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06449226-gnome-shell-extension-forge/gnome-shell-extension-forge-75-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Forge is a GNOME Shell extension that provides tiling/window management. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
Hi! I'm trying to review your package. But, I can't build it locally. rpmbuild -bs gnome-shell-extension-forge.spec setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1696809600 error: Bad file: /home/dev/rpmbuild/SOURCES/0001-Adjust-makefile-for-Fedora.patch: No such file or directory RPM build errors: Bad file: /home/dev/rpmbuild/SOURCES/0001-Adjust-makefile-for-Fedora.patch: No such file or directory I think this is due to, the Patch tag is not set/listed with a with a URL. And spectool can't retrieve it.
* set/listed with a URL.
That patch is included in the SRPM. It is not required (and not common) for patch directives to be based on a URL. $ rpm -qpl gnome-shell-extension-forge-75-1.fc40.src.rpm 0001-Adjust-makefile-for-Fedora.patch forge-44-75.tar.gz gnome-shell-extension-forge.spec If you're trying to build locally, I suggest using mock, not rpmbuild, to rebuild a SRPM. Alternatively, if you use the fedora-review tool, it will do a local build with mock for you based solely on the bugzilla number. P.S. Please don't set the needinfo flag with every response, that sends additional emails. Also please stick with the email that I submitted this bug with instead of pulling up my old one.
Understood, thanks. > P.S. Please don't set the needinfo flag with every response, that sends additional emails. Also please stick with the email that I submitted this bug with instead of pulling up my old one. Sorry. I haven't done this intentionally. All I did was insert my comment and press the "Save Changes" button.
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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/pt-br [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/pt-br, /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES [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 [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: 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. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 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: [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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 ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-forge-75-1.fc40.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-forge-75-1.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/tmporyfz5qs')] checks: 31, packages: 2 gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: W: no-documentation gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES/forge.mo gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES/forge.mo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 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: 1 gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: W: no-documentation gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES/forge.mo gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES/forge.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/forge-ext/forge/archive/v44-75/forge-44-75.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 007656834365de50c21d2a7917f81c26f9734bc0789df2d02411f7f40e85d80e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 007656834365de50c21d2a7917f81c26f9734bc0789df2d02411f7f40e85d80e Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-forge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (gnome-shell >= 45~ with gnome-shell < 46~) Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-forge: forge gnome-shell-extension-forge Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241002 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. This was an oversight on my part, I did the breakdown but didn't complete the comment for the second license. Fixed in the spec file now. # main source code: GPL-3.0-or-later -# css/index.js (installed as css.js) +# css/index.js (installed as css.js): MIT License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT > [!]: The spec file handles locales properly. The spec file itself does handle locales properly, but there is an upstream bug with how one of the locales is named. > gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: W: no-documentation Fixed by including the upstream README.md file. > gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES/forge.mo > gnome-shell-extension-forge.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/pt-br/LC_MESSAGES/forge.mo I've sent upstream a fix to rename this locale, and included it as a patch in the package. https://github.com/forge-ext/forge/pull/296 Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06514681-gnome-shell-extension-forge/gnome-shell-extension-forge.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06514681-gnome-shell-extension-forge/gnome-shell-extension-forge-75-1.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6514760 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241002-gnome-shell-extension-forge/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06514760-gnome-shell-extension-forge/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.
Thanks for the detailed response. LGTM. 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 [-]: 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. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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: [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-forge-75-1.fc40.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-forge-75-1.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/tmpt9xpxug_')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/forge-ext/forge/archive/v44-75/forge-44-75.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 007656834365de50c21d2a7917f81c26f9734bc0789df2d02411f7f40e85d80e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 007656834365de50c21d2a7917f81c26f9734bc0789df2d02411f7f40e85d80e Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-forge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (gnome-shell >= 45~ with gnome-shell < 46~) Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-forge: forge gnome-shell-extension-forge Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241002 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, R, C/C++, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the review Dhanuka. For any other reviewers that see this bug, Dhanuka isn't in the packager group yet, so unfortunately their review doesn't allow me to request the dist-git repo. I still need someone in the packagers group to assign this bug to themselves and set the fedora-review flag to "+" so I can move it forward.
Took a look at the spec file, seems fine and the fedora-review output looks right to me. PACKAGE APPROVED.
And I need to assign the bug to myself. Still learning how Bugzilla works :P
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-forge
FEDORA-2023-28bbbcf0b2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-28bbbcf0b2
FEDORA-2023-28bbbcf0b2 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-0e8d6cd574 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0e8d6cd574
FEDORA-2023-0e8d6cd574 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-0e8d6cd574 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0e8d6cd574 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-0e8d6cd574 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.