https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697648
Bug ID: 1697648 Summary: Review Request: cage - Wayland kiosk Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/cage.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/cage-0~git.110.69872ba-1.... Description: Cage is a kiosk compositor for Wayland. A kiosk is a window manager (in the X11 world) or compositor (in the Wayland world) that is designed for a user experience wherein user interaction and activities outside the scope of the running application are prevented. That is, a kiosk compositor runs a maximized application at a time and prevents the user from interacting with anything but this application. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697648
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Pre-release development snapshot should version like this:
Version: 0 Release: 0.1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps...
Package approved. Please fix the versioning before import.
May i ask you to review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=rust-askalono-cli in exchange if you have some spare time?
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]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cage/review-cage/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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. [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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cage [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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: cage-0~git.110.69872ba-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm cage-debuginfo-0~git.110.69872ba-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm cage-debugsource-0~git.110.69872ba-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm cage-0~git.110.69872ba-1.fc31.src.rpm cage.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2019-04-09 cage.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cage cage-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2019-04-09 cage-debugsource.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2019-04-09 cage.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2019-04-09 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697648
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@lyes.eu
--- Comment #2 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- *** Bug 1875635 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697648
Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2020-09-04 14:07:22
--- Comment #3 from Lyes Saadi fedora@lyes.eu --- Hi!
Why did you give up on this package?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1875635 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com