https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
Bug ID: 1483296 Summary: Review Request: deepin-dock - Deepin desktop environment Dock module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sensor.wen@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepi...
Description: Deepin desktop environment Dock module
Fedora Account System Username: mosquito
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
sensor.wen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1465889 | |(DeepinDEPackageReview)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889 [Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1483297
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483297 [Bug 1483297] Review Request: deepin-control-center - New control center for Linux Deepin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,
Some similar issues as before:
- You must post both SPEC URL and SRPM URL. It's used by fedora review to fetch the files from a bug number. - The latest version is 4.3.4, not 4.3.3 - Just use: %global repo dde-dock , no need for project - The changelog version is incorrect, you shouldn't include the git revision for a stable release - Why did you add a Provides and Obsoletes, this doesn't seem useful since it's not a renamed package. - Removes the Requires which are commented - Use pkgconfig where you can:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dtkbase) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dframeworkdbus) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gsettings-qt) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk+-2.0) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xtst) BuildRequires: qt5-linguist BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5X11Extras) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5Svg) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xcb-ewmh) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xcb-image)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
sensor.wen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1476596
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476596 [Bug 1476596] Review Request: dtkwidget - Deepin tool kit widget modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
--- Comment #2 from sensor.wen@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x8... SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x8...
Fixed it. Thanks We need to review dtkwidget first. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Can you build deepin-menu in Koji which is needed by this package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
--- Comment #4 from sensor.wen@gmail.com --- ok, i will build deepin-menu in Koji.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
--- Comment #5 from sensor.wen@gmail.com --- I have build pass the deepin-menu package in Koji, but the package takes 48 hours to be available for Rawhide.
Task list: https://github.com/FZUG/repo/issues/53
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- All okay for me, package accepted.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 450 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/deepin-dock/review-deepin- dock/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in deepin- dock-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. [-]: %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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: deepin-dock-4.3.4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm deepin-dock-devel-4.3.4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm deepin-dock-debuginfo-4.3.4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm deepin-dock-4.3.4-1.fc28.src.rpm deepin-dock.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-dock.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id deepin-dock.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id deepin-dock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dde-dock deepin-dock-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
Zamir SUN sztsian@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sztsian@gmail.com Alias| |deepin-dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296 Bug 1483296 depends on bug 1476596, which changed state.
Bug 1476596 Summary: Review Request: dtkwidget - Deepin tool kit widget modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476596
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296
Zamir SUN sztsian@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-07-22 09:31:33
--- Comment #8 from Zamir SUN sztsian@gmail.com --- This is already in Rawhide. Closing on behalf of the Deepin Desktop packaging effort.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com