Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/wmenu/wmenu.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/wmenu/wmenu-0.1.6-0.1.fc39.src.rpm Description: An efficient dynamic menu for Sway and wlroots based Wayland compositors. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6693115 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2251438-wmenu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06693115-wmenu/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.
Looks good ! (note: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/wmenu/review-wmenu/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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 906 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). [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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: wmenu-0.1.6-0.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm wmenu-debuginfo-0.1.6-0.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm wmenu-debugsource-0.1.6-0.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm wmenu-0.1.6-0.1.fc40.src.rpm =========================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmpeg11jvkv')] checks: 32, packages: 4 wmenu.src: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots') wmenu.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots') ===================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s ====================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wmenu-debuginfo-0.1.6-0.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmphohtodne')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ====================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ====================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 3 wmenu.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~adnano/wmenu/archive/0.1.6.tar.gz#/wmenu-0.1.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0684739e6339ffad6562338a4bf67e29bf18688d1a9b0ddf31b693a64d29efac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0684739e6339ffad6562338a4bf67e29bf18688d1a9b0ddf31b693a64d29efac Requires -------- wmenu (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wmenu-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wmenu-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wmenu: wmenu wmenu(x86-64) wmenu-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wmenu-debuginfo wmenu-debuginfo(x86-64) wmenu-debugsource: wmenu-debugsource wmenu-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n wmenu Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, R, PHP, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Antoine Damhet from comment #2) > Looks good ! (note: > note: it's my first review, and I'm still getting used to bugzilla, sorry for the dupe comment
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wmenu
Thanks for the review!
FEDORA-2024-2e2b16e49c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2e2b16e49c
FEDORA-2024-6cf5463e98 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6cf5463e98
FEDORA-2024-2e2b16e49c 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-2024-2e2b16e49c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2e2b16e49c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-6cf5463e98 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-6cf5463e98 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6cf5463e98 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-2e2b16e49c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-6cf5463e98 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.