https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
Bug ID: 2335013 Summary: Review Request: folio - A markdown note-taking app Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: umutd3401@posteo.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/umutd3401/test-builds/folio.... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/umutd3401/test-builds/srp... Description: A markdown note-taking app for GNOME. Fedora Account System Username: umutd3401
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
umutd3401@posteo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/umutd3401/test-builds/folio.... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/umutd3401/test-builds/srp... Description: A markdown note-taking app for GNOME. Fedora Account System Username: umutd3401
This is my first package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/toolstac | |k/Folio Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8455967 (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=2335013
--- Comment #2 from umutd3401@posteo.com --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/umutd3401/test-builds/folio.... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/umutd3401/test-builds/srp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2064343 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2064343&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8455967 to 8456586
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8456586 (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=2335013
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gwync@protonmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gwync@protonmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- 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 Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 169 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gwyn/2335013-folio/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/tok/LC_MESSAGES [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnome-shell, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/locale/tok/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps, /usr/share/locale/tok, /usr/share/gnome-shell/search-providers, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 13039 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127491884
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [-]: 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. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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. [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: folio-24.14-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm folio-24.14-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp3h5l16dd')] checks: 32, packages: 2
folio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.toolstack.Folio folio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary folio-search-provider 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/toolstack/Folio/archive/refs/tags/24.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6c380c1f80501f3b8dbffebd10c054db588caeefe467396501750bc5b0c39cb8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6c380c1f80501f3b8dbffebd10c054db588caeefe467396501750bc5b0c39cb8
Requires -------- folio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(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) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libgtksourceview-5.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- folio: application() application(com.toolstack.Folio-editor.desktop) application(com.toolstack.Folio.desktop) folio folio(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(com.toolstack.Folio.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/markdown) mimehandler(text/x-markdown)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335013 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Ruby, Python, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Perl, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- So this looks pretty good! Do you have any questions about anything in the above?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #7 from umutd3401@posteo.com --- (In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #6)
So this looks pretty good! Do you have any questions about anything in the above?
Thank you so much for taking the time for this! The only thing I'm wondering is where to make the changes. For the software related issue, I made a patch. To fix an error that showed up from linting, I decided to modify the files in the spec file because I thought it would be best since it's related to packaging. Now I think patching makes sense too, and I'm unsure what the best approach is. I couldn't find any sources on this. Other than that, I have no questions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- You're very welcome!
Well, both methods work, but I tend towards patching for two reasons.
One, if the change is no longer needed, you won't have a spurious sed command lingering forever. Two, if the change needs adjusting, the build will break, and you'll know and can refactor the patch to make sure it's still appropriate, etc.
The only time I really do changes to files in the spec is if it's a change I know will always be needed, especially if a patch would require constant updating due to a date string or something.
The above is for file changes. For directories that need removing, do that in the spec.
Make sense?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #9 from Umut Demir umutd3401@posteo.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/umutd3401/test-builds/srp... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/umutd3401/test-builds/srp...
Yeah, that makes sense. Now I created a patch to modify the files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2064552 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2064552&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8456586 to 8465523
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8465523 (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=2335013
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Excellent. Your FAS username is umutd3401, yes?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #13 from Umut Demir umutd3401@posteo.com --- Yes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Fantastic. As your sponsor I've added you to the packager group, and your package is approved. Go ahead and import and build your package, submit Bodhi updates, and use your powers for good. Welcome aboard. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
--- Comment #15 from Umut Demir umutd3401@posteo.com --- Thank you for the warm welcome, I'm excited to contribute!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/folio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ca96e603f0 (folio-24.14-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ca96e603f0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335013
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-01-03 16:58:52
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ca96e603f0 (folio-24.14-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com