Spec URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui.spec SRPM URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui-0.2-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: MoGui is a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for Environment Modules. It helps users selecting modules to load and save module collections. Fedora Account System Username: xdelaruelle
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7220752 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2271737-mogui/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07220752-mogui/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.
Hello! A few comments, first from rpmlint: > mogui.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-qt5 I couldn't find any documentation about this warning as it appears to be new.. The commit that added the warning ( https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/pull/1022/commits/76a091814a85e13a75cea16cc862911c5b9cf6c1 ) seems to say it compares requirements.txt with requires in the rpm? given rpmbuild automatically adds the following you can drop python3 and python3-qt5 from the requires altogether: python(abi) = 3.12 python3.12dist(pyqt5) > mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.csh > mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.sh Probably safe to ignore given other providers of profile snippets do the same; I'd have expected a /lib/profile.d to pop up by now but there doesn't seem to be any alternative at this point. > mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui > mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-cmd > mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-setup-env Given it's a gui I guess it's not too unusual not to have a man page, but I didn't make a difference between mogui-cmd and mogui so it might warrant some documentation? mogui.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/bin/mogui-cmd /usr/bin/mogui Ah, it's the same file, that's explain why I didn't make a difference.. Do we need both? The README doesn't mention mogui-cmd, so I'd keep just the former. for fedora-review output, skipping automatic ok checks [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. GPL-2.0+ is ok [ ]: 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. Not sure why it doesn't consider %license COPYING.GPLv2.. ok. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/profile.d, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share, /usr/bin, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/doc, /etc, /usr/share/fish, /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /etc/profile.d, /usr/share/doc, /etc, /usr/share, /usr/share/fish, /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/bin I don't see other packages adding these directories so it's probably fine? [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ok [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. Looks correct to me! [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Not sure what wouldn't bee permissible here.. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. There's none -- should we add one? [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package None so that's ok. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ok. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ok. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ - looks ok. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. installed ok on my bloated system, not sure how to check otherwise? [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. yese [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. not applicable [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. already pointed out to remove them [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. yes [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. not needed [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. noarch, so ok. [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) no such egg [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. built in mock so without network just fine [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. not used. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ looks ok to me at first glance [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Not sure why this is marked as fail, worked here. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. text is included [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). yes [ ]: Package functions as described. seems to work from quick test [ ]: Latest version is packaged. I'll assume that's a yes [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. yes [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. I assume no signature upstream ? [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. noarch, so ok. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. no check, but it's hard to check a gui... [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. not sure how that'd work for python, pass. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define srcname modules-gui I guess that one should be changed to %global. The spec itself is small enough and I didn't see anything else obviously wrong with it
Hello, Many thanks Dominique for this review. I have released a new version (0.2.1) that fix the issues you have spotted. Spec URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui.spec SRPM URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui-0.2.1-2.fc38.src.rpm Details of the changes made: (In reply to Dominique Martinet from comment #2) > > mogui.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-qt5 > > I couldn't find any documentation about this warning as it appears to be > new.. The commit that added the warning ( > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/pull/1022/commits/ > 76a091814a85e13a75cea16cc862911c5b9cf6c1 ) seems to say it compares > requirements.txt with requires in the rpm? > given rpmbuild automatically adds the following you can drop python3 and > python3-qt5 from the requires altogether: > > python(abi) = 3.12 > python3.12dist(pyqt5) fixed > Given it's a gui I guess it's not too unusual not to have a man page, but I > didn't make a difference between mogui-cmd and mogui so it might warrant > some documentation? > > > mogui.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/bin/mogui-cmd /usr/bin/mogui > > Ah, it's the same file, that's explain why I didn't make a difference.. Do > we need both? > The README doesn't mention mogui-cmd, so I'd keep just the former. I have removed "mogui". The profile.d script defines a "mogui" shell function (like environment-modules does). This shell function relies on the "mogui-cmd" script (cannot call "mogui" otherwise the shell function will call itself recursively) > [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /etc/profile.d, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12, > /usr/share, /usr/bin, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib, > /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/doc, /etc, > /usr/share/fish, /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, > /etc/profile.d, /usr/share/doc, /etc, /usr/share, /usr/share/fish, > /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib, > /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/bin > > > I don't see other packages adding these directories so it's probably fine? yes, this package cannot own directories used by many other packages > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > > There's none -- should we add one? I have added one > [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. > > I assume no signature upstream ? No signature upstream > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > no check, but it's hard to check a gui... The basic "%pyproject_check_import" test is there > [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define srcname modules-gui > > I guess that one should be changed to %global. Fixed Best regards, Xavier
Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fedora/2271737-mogui/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2271737-mogui/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d, /usr/lib/python3.12 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d [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]: 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: Documentation size is 48029 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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 Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/2271737-mogui/srpm- unpacked/mogui.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: mogui-0.2.1-2.fc41.noarch.rpm mogui-0.2.1-2.fc41.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/tmpoysw305w')] checks: 32, packages: 2 mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.csh mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.sh mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-cmd mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-setup-env 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 1 mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.csh mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.sh mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-cmd mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-setup-env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/m/modules-gui/modules-gui-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ee38ecc7acc84eecf89949cdd10ea0e8d6250d3b63d2b94dbd6256f39b9d6939 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e586a9ddf2a57873727dbb5526269fc4d3425361e8485724cd6d71f274c8b27 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- mogui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 environment-modules python(abi) python3.12dist(pyqt5) Provides -------- mogui: application() application(mogui.desktop) environment-modules-gui mogui python3.12dist(modules-gui) python3dist(modules-gui) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2271737 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Ocaml, Java, C/C++, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Provides section is not needed. b) Use desktop-file-install to install the desktop file https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage c) An appdata file is also needed: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ d) License file and README file are duplicated, though only once license file has license metadata associated to it.
Hello, Many thanks Benson for your review. I have released a new version (0.2.2) that fix the issues you have spotted. Spec URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui.spec SRPM URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui-0.2.2-1.fc38.src.rpm Changes: - Test desktop file - Add AppData file and test it - Remove environment-modules-gui provides - Clarify license used for icon files (CC-BY-SA-3.0) Regards, Xavier
Hello Benson, Is the packaging ok now I have fixed the issues you spotted? Regards, Xavier
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fedora/2271737-mogui/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2271737-mogui/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.12 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d [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]: 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: Documentation size is 49417 bytes in 3 files. [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]: 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 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]: 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 Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/2271737-mogui/srpm- unpacked/mogui.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: mogui-0.2.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm mogui-0.2.2-1.fc41.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/tmpmaw04zod')] checks: 32, packages: 2 mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.csh mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.sh mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-cmd mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-setup-env 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 1 mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.csh mogui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/mogui.sh mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-cmd mogui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mogui-setup-env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/m/modules-gui/modules-gui-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b02cebcc455f1e0593d4116e6435065a9814c4c72201dce3b589719e3efee45 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9b0b1a5aecff5db30e214d0e193cb2db6f35f89c672adf0267d00f9967512cc1 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- mogui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 environment-modules python(abi) python3.12dist(pyqt5) Provides -------- mogui: application() application(mogui.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(mogui.metainfo.xml) mogui python3.12dist(modules-gui) python3dist(modules-gui) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2271737 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, R, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please use the release available at https://pypi.org/project/modules-gui/#files b) License files are duplicated /usr/share/licenses/mogui/COPYING-ICONS.CCBYSA3 /usr/share/licenses/mogui/COPYING.GPLv2 and /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/modules_gui-0.2.2.dist-info/COPYING-ICONS.CCBYSA3 /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/modules_gui-0.2.2.dist-info/COPYING.GPLv2 but only one set has metadata information: $ rpm -qL mogui-0.2.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/mogui/COPYING-ICONS.CCBYSA3 /usr/share/licenses/mogui/COPYING.GPLv2 Changing the spec file to have: %files -n mogui -f %{pyproject_files} %doc ChangeLog README.md TODO.md %{_bindir}/%{name}-cmd %{_bindir}/%{name}-setup-env %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/%{name}.csh %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/%{name}.sh %{_datadir}/fish/vendor_conf.d/%{name}.fish %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.svg %{_metainfodir}/%{name}.metainfo.xml gives: $ rpm -qL mogui-0.2.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/modules_gui-0.2.2.dist-info/COPYING-ICONS.CCBYSA3 /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/modules_gui-0.2.2.dist-info/COPYING.GPLv2 c) Directory ownership problems seem to be errors with Fedora-review
Hello Benson, Many thanks for your second round of review. I have updated spec file (0.2.2-2) to handle the issues you have pointed. Spec URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui.spec SRPM URL: https://xdelaruelle.fedorapeople.org/mogui-0.2.2-2.fc40.src.rpm Changes: - Fix duplicated license files - Use correct source tarball archive Please let me know if everything is ok now. Regards, Xavier
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7492443 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2271737-mogui/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07492443-mogui/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7492429 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2271737-mogui/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07492429-mogui/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.
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118104903 Thanks. Seems ok. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mogui