https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Bug ID: 2254637 Summary: Review Request: labwc-menu-generator - Menu generator for labwc Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngompa13@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/labwc-menu-generator.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/labwc-menu-generator-0~git2023103... Description: Menu generator for labwc.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Whiteboard| |Trivial
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/labwc/la | |bwc-menu-generator
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6758236 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Daniel Axelrod fedora@danonline.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fedora@danonline.net CC| |fedora@danonline.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Daniel Axelrod fedora@danonline.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Axelrod fedora@danonline.net --- Thank you for packaging this!
Almost there. The package will be ready once %check is provided, and a SourceLicense field is provided. See Note s below.
Package Review for https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/fedora-review/fedora-review-225463... ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: The license field is correct for the binary package. However, sources include unit test scripts t/sharness.sh and t/aggregate-results.sh which are GPL-2.0-or-later. Therefore, there should be a SourceLicense field containing "GPL-2.0-only and GPL-2.0-or-later" [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [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. Note: tested for fedora-39-x86_64 [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: This is missing. Makefile includes a "check" target [x]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: labwc-menu-generator-0~git20231031.d7c8107-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
labwc-menu-generator-debuginfo-0~git20231031.d7c8107-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
labwc-menu-generator-debugsource-0~git20231031.d7c8107-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm labwc-menu-generator-0~git20231031.d7c8107-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmprvjicbwm')] checks: 31, packages: 4
labwc-menu-generator.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary labwc-menu-generator 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: labwc-menu-generator-debuginfo-0~git20231031.d7c8107-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp8v1dxf95')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "labwc-menu-generator-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "labwc-menu-generator". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "labwc-menu-generator-debugsource". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/labwc/labwc-menu-generator/archive/d7c81071f8b121ef83da32... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a445a57a5293e1a62f9c9e76d5f5678f08e5ec75d5677a8c3a04586f51009a85 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a445a57a5293e1a62f9c9e76d5f5678f08e5ec75d5677a8c3a04586f51009a85
Requires -------- labwc-menu-generator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
labwc-menu-generator-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
labwc-menu-generator-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- labwc-menu-generator: labwc-menu-generator labwc-menu-generator(x86-64)
labwc-menu-generator-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) labwc-menu-generator-debuginfo labwc-menu-generator-debuginfo(x86-64)
labwc-menu-generator-debugsource: labwc-menu-generator-debugsource labwc-menu-generator-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name labwc-menu-generator --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, R, PHP, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Updated in place.
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/labwc-menu-generator.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/labwc-menu-generator-0~git2023103...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Daniel Axelrod fedora@danonline.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Axelrod fedora@danonline.net --- Ok, review PASSED. Thanks for the quick fixes!
Updated items: [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: SourceLicense added. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: %check included and "make check" passes in mock.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/labwc-menu-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0939887d49 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0939887d49
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0939887d49 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-0939887d49 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0939887d49
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-01-01 01:31:00
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2565e47b01 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254637
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0939887d49 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com