Spec URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music.spec SRPM URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music-3.1.7.2-2.fc27.src.rpm Description: Deepin Music Player Fedora Account System Username: zsun RPMFusion FAS Username: zsun * Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora: This depends on some codec that are not accepted in Fedora. * This is my second RPM Fusion package. (The other is bug 4749 which is also just filed) * I am a current Fedora Packager * RPMlint: $ rpmlint *.rpm deepin-music.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found zh_CN deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant For these above, they are from upstream and I believe they are expected. deepin-music.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/dbus-1/services/com.deepin.dde.music.service Upstream provided an empty file. https://github.com/linuxdeepin/deepin-music/blob/master/music-player/data/com.deepin.dde.music.service deepin-music.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary deepin-music deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "Next Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-" deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "PlayPause Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-" deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "Previous Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-" For desktop file related. This music player is originally part of Deepin Desktop Environment(Short as DDE), and above are written under DDE's way. So I believe I shouldn't modify them. deepin-music-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) For debuginfo(build-id), all packages built in rawhide contains this, so I assume this won't hurt. deepin-music-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-music-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib deepin-music-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 10 warnings.
Just FYI, this is part of our effort of making DeepinDE available in Fedora. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/DeepinDE
Hello, - You are installing icons in hicolor, thus you must "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" to own the hicolor directories. - You should "Requires: dbus" to own the dbus directory. - You should "Requires: deepin-manual" to own the dman directory. - You are installing a .desktop file, you must validate it in %install on %check: desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage - Adding an Appdata file would be nice. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData - The scriplet for gtk-update-icon-cache is not needed for Fedora 26 and later. - The scriplet for update-desktop-database is not needed for Fedora 24 and later. - It would be best to unbundle and package separately the bundled libraries in Fedora: + libcue is already packaged in Fedora. It doesn't seem to be used during the build anyway. + chinese2pinyin is specific to Deepin, I don't see any reason to unbundle it. + dbusextended-qt: available upstream at https://github.com/nemomobile/qtdbusextended Packaged under libdbusextended-qt5 in Suse, you might wanna keep the same name in Fedora. SPEC to improve: https://github.com/nemomobile/qtdbusextended/blob/master/rpm/dbusextended.spec + mpris-qt: available upstream at https://github.com/nemomobile/qtmpris Packaged under libmpris-qt5 in Suse, you might wanna keep the same name in Fedora. SPEC to improve: https://github.com/nemomobile/qtmpris/blob/master/rpm/mpris-qt.spec Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache must not be invoked in %post and %posttrans for Fedora 26 and later. Note: icons in deepin-music See: - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - update-desktop-database must not be invoked in %post and %postun for Fedora 24 and later. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in deepin-music See: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&oldid=494555 #desktop-database ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 486 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /deepin-music/review-deepin-music/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/deepin-music/plugins, /usr/lib64 /deepin-music, /usr/share/dman [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/deepin- music/plugins, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/lib64/deepin-music, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/dman, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable [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. [-]: 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 2 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 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]: 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). [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1873920 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: deepin-music-3.1.7.2-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-devel-3.1.7.2-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-debuginfo-3.1.7.2-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-debugsource-3.1.7.2-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-3.1.7.2-2.fc28.src.rpm deepin-music.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found zh_CN deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant deepin-music.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/dbus-1/services/com.deepin.dde.music.service deepin-music.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary deepin-music deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "Next Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-" deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "PlayPause Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-" deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "Previous Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-" deepin-music-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib deepin-music-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-music-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 10 warnings.
Based on comment 2, I think this need some more time. I will submit a new one after the de-boundle is fixed.
The de-bundling is done SPEC URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music.spec SRPM URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music-3.1.9-1.fc29.src.rpm
install -pDm644 %{S:1} %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.appdata.xml Source1 is not defined in the SPEC thus this fails.
Also Appdata file must now go to %{_metainfodir}
Seems I copied some old spec, otherwise the SRPM won't generate at all. Sorry for that. Meanwhile fixed. SPEC URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music.spec SRPM URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music-3.1.9-1.fc30.src.rpm
Package approved. 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 421 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/deepin-music/review-deepin- music/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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in deepin- music-debuginfo , deepin-music-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [-]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1904640 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: deepin-music-3.1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-devel-3.1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-debuginfo-3.1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-debugsource-3.1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm deepin-music-3.1.9-1.fc30.src.rpm deepin-music.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found zh_CN deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant deepin-music.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/deepin-music/plugins/libnetease-meta-search.so deepin-music.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary deepin-music deepin-music-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
pkgdb request has bee processed.
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=580
@Zamir SUN Please consider adding a PR again the rpmfusion-free-comps to have a group for the DE that can complement the fedora one if any. https://pagure.io/fedora-comps https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/rpmfusion-free-comps
Sure. Currently we are testing and fixing issues found within Fedora 30 and a testing live media. I will update these packages and file PR to RPMFusion compose after those are done.