Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/jstest-gtk.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/jstest-gtk-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc39.src.rpm Description: jstest-gtk is a simple joystick tester based on Gtk+. It provides you with a list of attached joysticks, a way to display which buttons and axis are pressed, a way to remap axis and buttons and a way to calibrate your joystick. Fedora Account System Username: atim
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106922554
%global date 20230524 -> this hould not be the date of the commit, but the date where you took the snapshot. - %{_mandir}/*1/*.1* please don't glob so much. LGTM otherwise, package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jstest-gtk/review-jstest- gtk/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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. Note: Documentation size is 2947 bytes in 1 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). [?]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jstest-gtk-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm jstest-gtk-debuginfo-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm jstest-gtk-debugsource-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm jstest-gtk-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.src.rpm ============================================================================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpo6m433p2')] checks: 31, packages: 4 =============================================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ===============================================================================================================
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2) > %global date 20230524 > > -> this hould not be the date of the commit, but the date where you took > the snapshot. Thanks! Can we document this in docs.fedoraproject.org? Last time when i ask about this Fedora maintainers they are still have no clear opinion on this and said as you wish. Date of the commit look more logically here IMO. Would be nice to document this strictly. > - %{_mandir}/*1/*.1* > > please don't glob so much. I am always trying to find a balance between unnecessary chore and some kind of checks/protect from upstream mistakes in future updates. For all this time i've seen upstream mistakenly install in wrong dirs man{1-9} but what else could go wrong in this case? Also nice to document with examples and gotchas.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jstest-gtk
FEDORA-2023-4a18e8a37d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4a18e8a37d
FEDORA-2023-4a18e8a37d has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-1ca12ceeda has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1ca12ceeda
> this hould not be the date of the commit, but the date where you took the snapshot. We need come to an agreement here. Fedora docs said that this should be a **the last modification of the source code** https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots
FEDORA-2023-1ca12ceeda has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.