https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431322
Nemanja Milosevic nmilosevnm@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nmilosevnm@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #4 from Nemanja Milosevic nmilosevnm@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #1)
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 COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Fixed this one, it actually should say GPLv3 and BSD, because some files are licensed separately.
- glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in onboard See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema
This one I left out, because the Packaging guidelines specifically say not to use glib-compile-schemas on F23+ and I am building for F24+.
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in onboard See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
Fixed.
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
Fixed.
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in onboard See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database
Fixed.
- There are some whitespaces at EOLs
Fixed.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cheese/Personal/1431322-onboard/licensecheck.txt
As stated above, fixed.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
There are no tests, but I now mention it in the spec file.
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 22108160 bytes in /usr/share onboard-1.4.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm:22108160 See:
Split into onboard and onboard-data which is noarch now.
[!]: 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)
Modified it after the build to include a license properly last time, sorry! :(
Rpmlint
Checking: onboard-1.4.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm onboard-debuginfo-1.4.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm onboard-1.4.1-1.fc24.src.rpm onboard.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/onboard/layouts 2755 onboard.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/onboard/themes 2755 ...
Fixed.
New SPEC: https://pagure.io/onboard-rpm/raw/master/f/onboard.spec New SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nmilosev/onboard/fedora-25-x...
New builds are also on COPR.
Last note, on one of my machines packages build normally, but on the other rpmlint throws a lot of errors with python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value like here also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409376 (the package still builds and works just fine - Py 3.5.2)
Any ideas what is the reason
Thank you again for your thorough review!
Kind regards, Nemanja