https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431322
Nemanja Milosevic <nmilosevnm(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(nmilosevnm@gmail. |
|com) |
--- Comment #4 from Nemanja Milosevic <nmilosevnm(a)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-2...
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
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component