Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/pantheon-wayland.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/pantheon-wayland-1.0.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Pantheon Wayland is an utility library made exclusively for the Pantheon Desktop utilities. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134323893
This looks good except for a possible minor typo in the description of the -devel package and a question about the .pc file. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ N/A, this is a vala progam, and it has BuildRequires: vala - The description of the devel package contains this text: This package contains files useful for developing against the pantheon-desktop library. It seems like pantheon-desktop was perhaps supposed to be pantheon-wayland. - Normally, .pc files accompany the -devel package. Is there a particular reason why it should be in the base (library) package in this case? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2374307-pantheon-wayland/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/vala(babl-devel, gegl04-devel, gmime-devel, libsoup3-devel, rygel-devel, libmks-devel, libgee-devel, gcr-devel, libpeas-devel, gmime30-devel, elementary- files-devel, libtranslit-devel, libsoup-devel, gvnc, caribou-devel, libgda5-ui-devel, libsecret-devel, zeitgeist-devel, libgda-ui-devel, libgda-devel, gupnp-devel, libdazzle-devel, libgda5-devel, libgexiv2-devel, gnome-online-accounts-devel, grilo-devel, libgnome- games-support1-devel, ibus-devel, gnome-autoar-devel, libgnome-games- support-devel, vala, dconf-devel, gspell-devel, gsound-devel, libshumate-devel, gtksourceview3-devel, libgweather-devel, folks- devel, libmanette-devel, gtksourceview5-devel, libcloudproviders- devel, gala-devel, libdex-devel, accountsservice-devel, template-glib- devel, gcr3-devel, jsonrpc-glib-devel, libpanel-devel, pulseaudio- libs-devel, libcanberra-devel, budgie-desktop-devel, gssdp-devel, gupnp-av-devel, appstream-devel, gitg-devel, librsvg2-devel, vte291-devel, libosinfo-devel, gplugin-vala, rhythmbox-devel, bamf- devel, gupnp-dlna-devel, gtksourceview4-devel, gimp-devel, libhandy- devel, pqmarble-devel, libgnome-keyring-devel, libjcat-devel, gnome- calculator-devel, geoclue2-devel, libgit2-glib-devel, libspelling- devel, libgdata-devel, libdmapsharing4-devel), /usr/share/vala/vapi(gegl04-devel, gmime30-devel, libsoup-devel, vala, dconf-devel, gspell-devel, libshumate-devel, gtksourceview3-devel, libgweather-devel, libmanette-devel, libcloudproviders-devel, fwupd- devel, budgie-desktop-devel, rhythmbox-devel, libhandy-devel, gimp- devel, libgnome-keyring-devel, geoclue2-devel, libgdata-devel, libdmapsharing4-devel, babl-devel, elementary-files-devel, caribou- devel, libsecret-devel, libgda-ui-devel, libgda-devel, libdazzle- devel, libgda5-devel, libgexiv2-devel, grilo-devel, gnome-autoar- devel, libdex-devel, jsonrpc-glib-devel, libzeitgeist-devel, gupnp-av- devel, vte291-devel, bamf-devel, gmime-devel, libgee-devel, gcr-devel, libpeas-devel, gvnc, gnome-online-accounts-devel, ibus-devel, folks- devel, gtksourceview5-devel, gala-devel, gcr3-devel, libpanel-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel, libcanberra-devel, gssdp-devel, libosinfo- devel, gupnp-dlna-devel, gtksourceview4-devel, libjcat-devel, gnome- calculator-devel, libgit2-glib-devel, libspelling-devel, libsoup3-devel, rygel-devel, libmks-devel, libtranslit-devel, libgda5-ui-devel, zeitgeist-devel, gupnp-devel, libgnome-games- support1-devel, libgnome-games-support-devel, gsound-devel, accountsservice-devel, template-glib-devel, librsvg2-devel, appstream- devel, gitg-devel, gplugin-vala, pqmarble-devel, libproxy-devel) Co-owning /usr/share/vala and /usr/share/vala/vapi seems to be the right choice here. These directories are perhaps at the verge of meriting inclusion in the filesystem packages. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: 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. [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 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 579 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. I assume any problems will make themselves evident and be fixed in due course. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: pantheon-wayland : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pantheon-wayland-1.pc [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134323893 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream provides no tests. [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: pantheon-wayland-1.0.0-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm pantheon-wayland-devel-1.0.0-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm pantheon-wayland-1.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmptv5jpydu')] checks: 32, packages: 3 pantheon-wayland-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation pantheon-wayland.spec: W: no-%check-section pantheon-wayland.aarch64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pantheon-wayland-1.pc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pantheon-wayland-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp9r9gmp02')] 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: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 pantheon-wayland-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation pantheon-wayland.aarch64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pantheon-wayland-1.pc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elementary/pantheon-wayland/archive/1.0.0/pantheon-wayland-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4fb3dfb56cba5f6ef41bae6768f649d87d2e75e62b785b7e336a0a36dd07b523 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4fb3dfb56cba5f6ef41bae6768f649d87d2e75e62b785b7e336a0a36dd07b523 Requires -------- pantheon-wayland (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(gio-2.0) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) pkgconfig(gobject-2.0) pkgconfig(gtk4) pkgconfig(gtk4-wayland) pkgconfig(wayland-client) rtld(GNU_HASH) pantheon-wayland-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpantheon-wayland.so.1()(64bit) pantheon-wayland(aarch-64) Provides -------- pantheon-wayland: libpantheon-wayland.so.1()(64bit) pantheon-wayland pantheon-wayland(aarch-64) pkgconfig(pantheon-wayland-1) pantheon-wayland-devel: pantheon-wayland-devel pantheon-wayland-devel(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2374307 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Haskell, PHP, Perl, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Are you still working on this?
Yes, sorry for the delay. I've made two changes: - Fixed the copypasta / typo in the -devel package description. - Moved the .pc file from the main to the -devel subpackage. Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/pantheon-wayland.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/pantheon-wayland-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9729302 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2374307-pantheon-wayland/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09729302-pantheon-wayland/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
The new submission matches the old one except for the small changes required to resolve the two mentioned issues. The previous review therefore still applies, except that those two issues have been resolved. The package is therefore APPROVED.
Thank you for the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pantheon-wayland
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f181f6cad3