Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at
Bug 1687335 - Review Request: optimizer - Find out what's eating up your system resources
Summary: Review Request: optimizer - Find out what's eating up your system resources
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-03-11 09:57 UTC by Artem
Modified: 2019-03-14 18:33 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2019-03-14 18:33:03 UTC
Type: ---
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Artem 2019-03-11 09:57:10 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Find out what's eating up your system resources and delete unnecessary files from your disk.
Fedora Account System Username: atim

Tiny app written in Vala lang.

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-03-12 01:06:05 UTC
 - Use a better name for your archive:

Source0:        %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Nitpick:

BuildRequires:  libappstream-glib
BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils

 - This should not be here:

%exclude %dir %{_prefix}/lib/debug

 - There's a rpmlint warning you should probably report upstream:

optimizer.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/com.github.hannesschulze.optimizer

The binary declares the stack as executable.  Executable stack is usually an
error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar
constructs which uses code on the stack.  One common source for needlessly
executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't
define a proper .note.GNU-stack section.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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]: 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.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2, /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps, /usr/share/locale/mo
[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
[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.
[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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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
     optimizer , optimizer-debuginfo , optimizer-debugsource
[?]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: optimizer-1.0.1-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm
optimizer.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/com.github.hannesschulze.optimizer
optimizer.x86_64: W: no-documentation
optimizer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.hannesschulze.optimizer
optimizer.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/bh/LC_MESSAGES/
optimizer.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/
optimizer.src:50: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/debug
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 3 Artem 2019-03-12 21:50:38 UTC
Fixed a little bit:

  Spec URL:

But i still trying to figure out how to fix this and why this debug file duplicated:

  %exclude %dir %{_prefix}/lib/debug

There also a discussion about (

 - BuildRequires:  libappstream-glib
 - BuildRequires:  /usr/bin/appstream-util

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-03-12 22:17:41 UTC
>But i still trying to figure out how to fix this and why this debug file duplicated:
>  %exclude %dir %{_prefix}/lib/debug

I don't understand what there is to fix? This is not needed, there is no error on my end, %{_prefix}/lib/debug files are handled correctly in debugsource package. Just remove that line and you're good.

Package approved.

Comment 5 Artem 2019-03-13 09:26:58 UTC
I removed '%exclude %dir %{_prefix}/lib/debug' and now its OK for me too, no duplicate debug file here. Really weird.

Final version:

Spec URL:

@Robert-André Mauchin, thank you!

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-03-13 13:49:25 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-03-13 15:47:55 UTC
optimizer-1.1.0-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-03-14 18:33:03 UTC
optimizer-1.1.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.