https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
Bug ID: 2053288 Summary: Review Request: Warble - The word-guessing game Product: Fedora Version: 36 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ali.erdinc.koroglu@intel.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/Neverland/fedor... SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/Neverland/fedor... Fedora Account System Username: aekoroglu
Description: Native Linux word-guessing game built in Vala and Gtk.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jskarvad@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jskarvad@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Issues: - mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 4), please use either tabs or spaces - description-line-too-long, please wrap to the 80 characters or so (check with the rpmlint) - why is there the '-c' in the %autosetup? it seems the archive already has correctly named directory - in the /usr/share/icons/hicolor/ what's the purpose of the @2 suffixed directories? it seems there is no other package installing it, normally the hicolor subdirs are provided by the hicolor-icon-theme package, so in this case these directories are unowned - is the '%global _vpath_srcdir %{name}-%{version}` line needed? the defaults should work OK - is the %license and %doc '%{name}-%{version}/' prefix needed? with the changes mentioned above it should work without it
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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 General Public License v2.0 or later". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git-fedora/warble/2053288-warble/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/status, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/status, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/status [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/status, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/status, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/status, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps [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. [-]: 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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 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]: 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]: Package functions as described. Untested [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Probably OK, meson [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3399680 bytes in /usr/share Probably OK, dictionary [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: warble-1.2.0-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm warble-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm warble-debugsource-1.2.0-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm warble-1.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm warble.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Native Linux word-guessing game built in Vala and Gtk. Warble is inspired by (and not affiliated with) warble.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C the recently popular online game Wordle (which itself is reminiscent of the late 80's game show Lingo). warble.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.avojak.warble warble.src: E: description-line-too-long C Native Linux word-guessing game built in Vala and Gtk. Warble is inspired by (and not affiliated with) warble.src: E: description-line-too-long C the recently popular online game Wordle (which itself is reminiscent of the late 80's game show Lingo). warble.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 4) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: warble-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/avojak/warble/archive/refs/tags/1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f957bde187580ab004a3ae398a0c68ad9fd365d69056277ac87436b48085116f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f957bde187580ab004a3ae398a0c68ad9fd365d69056277ac87436b48085116f
Requires -------- warble (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgranite.so.6()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-1.so.0()(64bit) libhandy-1.so.0(LIBHANDY_1_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
warble-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
warble-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- warble: application() application(com.github.avojak.warble.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(com.github.avojak.warble.appdata.xml) warble warble(x86-64)
warble-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) warble-debuginfo warble-debuginfo(x86-64)
warble-debugsource: warble-debugsource warble-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2053288 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, R, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
--- Comment #3 from Ali Erdinc Koroglu ali.erdinc.koroglu@intel.com --- Thanks for the review, package updated as requested. Would it be possible to take a look?
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-3... RPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-3...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- LGTM, approving. Please do not forget to revert the hi-dpi dirs once the support is in fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
--- Comment #5 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/warble
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
Ali Erdinc Koroglu ali.erdinc.koroglu@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-03-30 07:28:59
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053288
orborne quanghieucorp@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quanghieucorp@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from orborne quanghieucorp@gmail.com --- I found the word guessing game still working properly and without any errors. I tried 1 website xxx and some other pages about this game. Generally works well. https://wordlewebsite.org/
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com