https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374306
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- This package looks nice and clean. There are just a few things that seem to need a second look. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-settings-daemon See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names This was previously packaged as https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-settings-daemon; I note that this will be a review for unretirement. - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in elementary-settings-daemon See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets Don’t you need to call %systemd_{post,preun,postun_with_restart} for %{appname}.check-for-firmware-updates.{service,timer} ? - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in elementary-settings-daemon See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units I don’t know what fedora-review is trying to say here. It looks like the scriptlets for %{appname}.xdg-desktop-portal.service are correct. - There are some unowned directories; see below for commentary and suggestions. ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2374306-elementary- settings-daemon/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/mo This is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251577; it should be resolved in the filesystem package by https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/filesystem/pull-request/28 or similar. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/accountsservice/interfaces, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces, /usr/share/locale/mo, /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/accountsservice If this package has a natural runtime dependency on accountsservice, then add: Requires: accountsservice Otherwise, co-own the relevant directories: %dir %{_datadir}/accountsservice %dir %{_datadir}/accountsservice/interfaces For /usr/share/dbus-1/{interfaces,services}, add: Requires: dbus-common For /usr/share/locale/mo and /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, see the above section; all you can reasonably do is wait for a fix in the filesystem. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 734 bytes in 1 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). [?]: Package functions as described. I have no idea how to test this. I assume you will notice any problems eventually. [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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137770029 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream provides no tests, but the necessary desktop and AppData file validation is present. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: elementary-settings-daemon-8.3.1-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm elementary-settings-daemon-8.3.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpvgy_i529')] checks: 32, packages: 2 elementary-settings-daemon.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary io.elementary.settings-daemon elementary-settings-daemon.aarch64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/io.elementary.settings-daemon.mo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: elementary-settings-daemon-debuginfo-8.3.1-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmplh9jlump')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2 elementary-settings-daemon.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary io.elementary.settings-daemon elementary-settings-daemon.aarch64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/io.elementary.settings-daemon.mo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elementary/settings-daemon/archive/8.3.1/settings-daemon-8.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a21a81443a42e6209a27b4c25863117ae1e369fa6a965840e543da5b2be66dc8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a21a81443a42e6209a27b4c25863117ae1e369fa6a965840e543da5b2be66dc8 Requires -------- elementary-settings-daemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(elementary-settings-daemon) ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfwupd.so.3()(64bit) libfwupd.so.3(LIBFWUPD_0.7.0)(64bit) libfwupd.so.3(LIBFWUPD_0.9.2)(64bit) libfwupd.so.3(LIBFWUPD_0.9.3)(64bit) libfwupd.so.3(LIBFWUPD_0.9.8)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgeoclue-2.so.0()(64bit) libgexiv2.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpackagekit-glib2.so.18()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-desktop-portal Provides -------- elementary-settings-daemon: application() application(io.elementary.settings-daemon.desktop) config(elementary-settings-daemon) elementary-settings-daemon elementary-settings-daemon(aarch-64) metainfo() metainfo(io.elementary.settings-daemon.metainfo.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2374306 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Haskell, R, Python, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374306 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202374306%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
