https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
Bug ID: 1907097 Summary: Review Request: gxkb - X11 keyboard indicator and switcher Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.cordatus@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/gxkb.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/gxkb-0.9.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: gxkb is a tiny indicator applet which allows to quickly switch between different keyboard layouts in X. A flag corresponding to the country of the active layout is shown in the indicator area. The applet is written in C and uses GTK+ library and therefore does not depend on any GNOME components.
Fedora Account System Username: atim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vitaly@easycoding.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vitaly@easycoding.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- I will review this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/gxkb See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses/gxkb [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses/gxkb [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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [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]: 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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gxkb-0.9.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm gxkb-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm gxkb-debugsource-0.9.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm gxkb-0.9.0-1.fc34.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gxkb-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zen-tools/gxkb/archive/v0.9.0/gxkb-0.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 67ac5cc2c2c93bfd74eb9bcbe13f3b2266c9663057b7a425df28fd34437dab61 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67ac5cc2c2c93bfd74eb9bcbe13f3b2266c9663057b7a425df28fd34437dab61
Requires -------- gxkb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libwnck-3.so.0()(64bit) libxklavier.so.16()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gxkb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gxkb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- gxkb: application() application(gxkb.desktop) gxkb gxkb(x86-64)
gxkb-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gxkb-debuginfo gxkb-debuginfo(x86-64)
gxkb-debugsource: gxkb-debugsource gxkb-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1907097 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, R, Perl, Python, PHP, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses/gxkb mv %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}/COPYING %{buildroot}%{_licensedir}/%{name}/
I suggest using %doc and %license instead.
Just add this to the %prep stage:
sed -e 's@doc/Makefile@@' -i configure.ac
Then add this to the %files: %doc doc/AUTHORS doc/CREDITS doc/NEWS %license doc/COPYING
All other LGTM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- This minor issue can be fixed during import. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gxkb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-fd4e12a8a1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fd4e12a8a1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f950d91d8d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f950d91d8d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-12-16 01:42:55
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-fd4e12a8a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907097
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f950d91d8d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f950d91d8d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f950d91d8d
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=1907097
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f950d91d8d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com