https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2387518 Michael Catanzaro <mcatanza@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |chergert@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Michael Catanzaro <mcatanza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for packaging. This is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libfoundry{,-gtk}-1.pc should move to the devel subpackage. I think the GPL-3.0-or-later license is probably a mistake that we should be able to remove. Created https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/foundry/-/issues/14 to confirm. Let's wait for Christian to respond to this to make sure we get the License tag right. My recommendation is to removed the Provides: bundled(eggbitset) and bundled(timsort). I know it's sometimes hard to decide where to draw the line, but this seems too granular to me. It's a stretch to treat these little copylibs as equivalent to bundled libraries just because they happen to have their own meson.build and are two source files each instead of just one. You wisely don't add Provides for all the other egg files because it wouldn't scale well and the list would inevitably become stale. I've created https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/foundry/-/issues/15 to request a man page and https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/foundry/-/merge_requests/8 to placate the incorrect FSF address warning. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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: I removed fedora-review's comment here because it doesn't understand the foundry license API and is thinking that a bunch of random licenses apply. I manually ran fedora-review myself and inspected the licensecheck output. The only inconsistency I found is already fixed by https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/foundry/-/commit/0a82a4e642c65de89fa3d4eec9efbfc9b53d150b [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. [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. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: ExcludeArch for i686 is encouraged. The review criterion is wrong. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10399 bytes in 2 files. Note: The above comment is written by fedora-review. Not sure what it thinks is documentation. Probably false positive. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: foundry : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libfoundry-1.pc foundry : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libfoundry-gtk-1.pc [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. Note: GNOME doesn't publish signatures. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Note: not evaluated for most architectures. Fail because i686 is intentionally excluded. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1955840 bytes in /usr/share Note: I think this is not big enough to warrant creating a noarch subpackage. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Note: I think fedora-review's use of rpmlint has been broken for a long time. I think it's only running on the SRPM rather than on installed packages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: foundry-1.0~beta-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm foundry-devel-1.0~beta-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm foundry-1.0~beta-1.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/tmp8irwfls_')] checks: 32, packages: 3 foundry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary foundry foundry-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation foundry.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/foundry/COPYING foundry.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libfoundry-1.pc foundry.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libfoundry-gtk-1.pc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 29 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: foundry-debuginfo-1.0~beta-1.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/tmpvhlx249l')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "foundry-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "foundry-devel". ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "foundry". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/foundry/1.0/foundry-1.0.beta.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a80ecbbfb9e3c3ecc834e98cc4fea20145068e5d8cae3cb781c7cede766a8bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a80ecbbfb9e3c3ecc834e98cc4fea20145068e5d8cae3cb781c7cede766a8bd Requires -------- foundry (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libc.so.6()(64bit) libcmark.so.0.30.3()(64bit) libdex-1.so.1()(64bit) libflatpak.so.0()(64bit) libfoundry-1.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgit2.so.1.9()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgom-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libgtksourceview-5.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-2.so.0()(64bit) libspelling-1.so.2()(64bit) libtemplate_glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libvte-2.91-gtk4.so.0()(64bit) libwebkitgtk-6.0.so.4()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.2)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.7)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libyaml-0.so.2()(64bit) pkgconfig(flatpak) pkgconfig(gio-2.0) pkgconfig(gio-unix-2.0) pkgconfig(gom-1.0) pkgconfig(gtk4) pkgconfig(gtksourceview-5) pkgconfig(json-glib-1.0) pkgconfig(libcmark) pkgconfig(libdex-1) pkgconfig(libfoundry-1) pkgconfig(libgit2) pkgconfig(libpeas-2) pkgconfig(libspelling-1) pkgconfig(libssh2) pkgconfig(libxml-2.0) pkgconfig(sysprof-capture-4) pkgconfig(template-glib-1.0) pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4) pkgconfig(webkitgtk-6.0) pkgconfig(yaml-0.1) rtld(GNU_HASH) foundry-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): foundry(x86-64) libfoundry-1.so.1()(64bit) libfoundry-gtk-1.so.1()(64bit) Provides -------- foundry: bundled(eggbitset) bundled(timsort) foundry foundry(x86-64) libfoundry-1.so.1()(64bit) libfoundry-gtk-1.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(libfoundry-1) pkgconfig(libfoundry-gtk-1) foundry-devel: foundry-devel foundry-devel(x86-64) -- 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=2387518 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202387518%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
