https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370 --- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- * Please ensure ownersip of /usr/lib/Marker.extensions directory. See below. * Versioning should be just 2023.05.02 I believe. Apart from that LGTM. I really don't see any blocking issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ^^^ We have 3 more LICENSE files from Source[123]. Consider packing them as well. NOT A BLOCKER. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/marker See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ^^^ That's ok. This Review request is actually a Re-Review. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. ^^^ Acknowledged in the spec-file. WiP. [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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/Marker.extensions. See my note above. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/lib/Marker.extensions, /usr/share/help/C. Looks like nobody wants to own /usr/share/help/*/. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!/?]: Package contains plenty of bundled libraries. Unfortunately this should be fixed upstream. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [0]: No development files. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [!]: Package does not fully obey FHS. Acknowledged in the spec-file. WiP. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [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]: 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 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 8245 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Please, avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Work with upstream on that. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) ^^^ false positive. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1208320 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: marker-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.x86_64.rpm marker-data-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.noarch.rpm marker-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.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/tmplybwbz53')] checks: 32, packages: 3 marker.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 68% marker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary marker marker-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: marker-debuginfo-0.0.2023.05.02-10.fc43.x86_64.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/tmp9n7w8wkj')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 3 marker.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 68% marker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary marker marker-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- marker: /usr/lib/Marker.extensions/libscroll-extension.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/codeplea/tinyexpr/archive/9476568b69de4c384903f1d5f255907b92592f45/tinyexpr-9476568.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c0c9496d9e9b693ae364860f0b66c403b87337db1b5a78275a0c78a07495286 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c0c9496d9e9b693ae364860f0b66c403b87337db1b5a78275a0c78a07495286 https://github.com/Mandarancio/charter/archive/a25dee1214ea9ba5882325066555cb813efbb489/charter-a25dee1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60237a813383b44891e57049ba1f86cc5b89c28eee620b6ee90582a0c7ba6f8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60237a813383b44891e57049ba1f86cc5b89c28eee620b6ee90582a0c7ba6f8a https://github.com/Mandarancio/scidown/archive/a7b7f063de4f272ef0ec12d00b98470888e8cb32/scidown-a7b7f06.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 31e63658e2e79b5c5b0497d568e548f177fc89cb1dd9b6d78aba7685f0506ff0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31e63658e2e79b5c5b0497d568e548f177fc89cb1dd9b6d78aba7685f0506ff0 https://github.com/fabiocolacio/Marker/archive/2023.05.02/marker-2023.05.02.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 097a6e3811f0c4c14c574b8aafee27ee62232ae3ad3084e18a35c2dc8a1e93dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 097a6e3811f0c4c14c574b8aafee27ee62232ae3ad3084e18a35c2dc8a1e93dd Requires -------- marker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-3.0.so.1()(64bit) libgtkspell3-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libwebkit2gtk-4.1.so.0()(64bit) marker-data rtld(GNU_HASH) marker-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): marker Provides -------- marker: application() application(com.github.fabiocolacio.marker.desktop) bundled(asana-math-fonts) bundled(gyre-pagella-fonts) bundled(gyre-termes-fonts) bundled(highlight-js) bundled(katex) bundled(katex-fonts) bundled(latin-modern-fonts) bundled(mathjax) bundled(neo-euler-fonts) bundled(scidown) bundled(stix-web-fonts) bundled(tex-fonts) libscroll-extension.so()(64bit) marker marker(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(com.github.fabiocolacio.marker.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/x-markdown) marker-data: marker-data Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2362370-marker/srpm/marker.spec 2025-05-03 11:55:34.141955332 +0200 +++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2362370-marker/srpm-unpacked/marker.spec 2025-04-26 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 10; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global uuid com.github.fabiocolacio.%{name} %global vergit 2023.05.02 @@ -172,3 +182,47 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Apr 26 2025 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2023.05.02-10 +- Fix license + +* Fri Apr 25 2025 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2023.05.02-9 +- Fix FTBFS + +* Thu Jul 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2020.04.04-7 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild + +* Thu Jan 20 2022 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2020.04.04-6 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild + +* Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2020.04.04-5 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild + +* Tue Jan 26 2021 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2020.04.04-4 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild + +* Wed Sep 2 2020 Artem Polishchuk <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2020.04.04-3 +- Remove old LTO macros + +* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2020.04.04-2 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sat Apr 04 2020 Artem Polishchuk <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2020.04.04-1 +- Update to 2020.04.04 + +* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.2019.11.06-6 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sat Jan 04 2020 Artem Polishchuk <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> - 2019.11.06-5 +- Switch to release tarballs +- Provides all bundled components + +* Tue Dec 10 2019 Artem Polishchuk <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> - 2019.11.06-1.20191210git49a7e14 +- Update to 2019.11.06 + +* Tue Apr 30 2019 Artem Polishchuk <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> - 2018.07.03-1.20190430gitc0f8c7e +- Update to latest snapshot + +* Fri Apr 05 2019 Artem Polishchuk <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> - 2018.07.03-3.20190227gited56a04 +- Initial package + +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2362370 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Please, comment/address my notes above and we'll finish this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362370 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202362370%23c14 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
