https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596278 --- Comment #2 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Not needed: > > Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root Fixed. > %defattr(-,root,root) Fixed. > - Not good: > > Version: %{date}git%{short_gittag} > Release: 1%{?dist} > > If you do a dev snapshot, the date and gittag should be in Release: > > Version: 0 > Release: 0.1.%{date}git%{short_gittag}%{?dist} > > See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots > > - Thus use: > > Source0: > https://github.com/sgan81/%{name}/archive/%{short_gittag}/%{name}- > %{short_gittag}.tar.gz Done. > - The changelog entry should contain the version-release info: > > * Thu Jun 28 2018 Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> - > 0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741 My vim macros can't generate it. This is tagged in the repo, so why is this important? > - Use: > > %global short_gittag %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7}) Done. Why is this not mentioned in the packaging guidelines? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots > - The LICENSE must be included with %license, not %doc: > > %files > %{_bindir}/apfs-* > %doc README.md > %license LICENSE Done. > - You're using a mix of tabs and space in the SPEC, use one or the other' > not both. Used spaces now. > - lzfse is licensed under BSD. Add it to the license field and add a > comment explaining the license breakdown. Also install the lzfse LICENSE > file as LICENSE-lzfse The lzfse sources already include this, and the combined work is GPLv2+. I don't think we need this. > - Use %global, not %define Done. > - Split the description lines to stay below 80 characters per line. I've reworked this as well. > 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]: 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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". > 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/bob/packaging/review/apfs-fuse/review-apfs-fuse/licensecheck.txt I don't think it's necessary, as the combined work's license is already mentioned correctly. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Fixed. > [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 must own all directories that it creates. > [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]: 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. > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define date 20180628, %define > gittag be557410232d84929614410d9048468bc6e5f671, %define short_gittag > %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7}) Fixed. > [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > > ===== 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: apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm > apfs-fuse-debuginfo-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm > apfs-fuse-debugsource-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm > apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.src.rpm > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a read-only > FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk > format of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read > all files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But > since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all > compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so > far). Fixed. > apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump > apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump-quick > apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-fuse Won't be fixing this. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a read-only > FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk format > of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read all > files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But > since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. > apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all > compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so > far). Fixed. > apfs-fuse.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line > 5) Fixed. > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings. New spec and package at: https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse-0-1.20180628gitbe55741.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/3KOXSW7VRG4HZ7LIRQOW6XXM5NUQZ6AN/
