Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imbev/bootc-gtk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08010122-bootc-gtk/bootc-gtk.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/imbev/bootc-gtk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08010122-bootc-gtk/bootc-gtk-0.3-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: A GTK4 interface for bootc. Fedora Account System Username: imbev This is my first package for Fedora/EPEL. I am the upstream maintainer for this project. There was a preliminary review here: https://codeberg.org/carlwgeorge/fedora-package-reviews/pulls/1 copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/imbev/bootc-gtk/build/8010122/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8010456 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2311833-bootc-gtk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08010456-bootc-gtk/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.
Some comments on the rpmlint results: bootc-gtk.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libadwaita The explicit requires on libadwaita is causing this rpmlint error. Normally such a dependency shouldn't be used because a shared library dependency would be automatically added by RPM, but in this case it's necessary because libadwaita contains /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0/Adw-1.typelib. This is the file needed for the code `gi.require_version('Adw', '1')` in src/main.py to work. I'm passing this item, but after importing the srpm to dist-git please add a comment above the libadwaita requires line with this justification. bootc-gtk.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 14) There are a few tab characters in the spec file. The are more spaces than tabs, so the easiest fix is to replace the tabs with spaces. This can also be fixed after import, and doesn't need to block the review. Package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/carl/packaging/reviews/bootc-gtk/2311833-bootc- gtk/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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. [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: [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.
I've sponsored imbev into the packager group.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bootc-gtk
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6bc8503916