https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886858 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Very nice and comprehensive description and big props for running Koji builds on several Fedora releases! > A small patch is used to allow the program to build without disabling -Werror=format-security. This patch, and a separate file containing the MIT license text, would generally be good suggestions to push back upstream; however, given the lack of upstream activity, it does seem unlikely that a new release would be made merely to accommodate Fedora’s preferences. I would still contact upstream and see what they have to say about it, and whether they're responsive at all. Worst case scenario, you can fork the project and add the missing components into your fork. > Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/png-mng/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > Patch0: pngcheck-2.3.0-format-security.patch You can reuse %{name} and %{version} in the Patch0 line. Also, please add a note above explaining why the patch is needed. That information needs to be in the SPEC file. You already have it in your first post: > A small patch is used to allow the program to build without disabling -Werror=format-security. > %package extras > Summary: Helper utilities distributed with %{name} > License: GPLv2+ Should pngcheck-extras depend on pngcheck? If so, and it's very likely, it needs an appropriate line like this: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > %install > install -d '%{buildroot}%{_bindir}' > install -d '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' > find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm /0111 | while read -r bin > do > install -t '%{buildroot}%{_bindir}' "${bin}" > install -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' -m 0644 "${bin}.1" > done Since you're not using %make_install, please add the -p flag to your "install" calls to preserve timestamps. Extra comments in the full review below: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "NTP License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/pngcheck/pngcheck/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 40960 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Review: mentioned in an earlier comment. [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 pngcheck-extras Review: mentioned in an earlier comment. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Review: mentioned in an earlier comment. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Review: mentioned in an earlier comment. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pngcheck-2.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm pngcheck-extras-2.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm pngcheck-debuginfo-2.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm pngcheck-debugsource-2.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm pngcheck-2.3.0-1.fc34.src.rpm pngcheck.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksums -> check sums, check-sums, checks pngcheck.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sTER -> st Er, stet, steer pngcheck.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US brokensuite -> broken suite, broken-suite, brokenhearted pngcheck-extras.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US png -> pg, ping, pang pngcheck-extras.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US windowsize -> window size, window-size, downsize pngcheck-extras.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib pngcheck-extras.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/pngcheck-extras/COPYING pngcheck.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksums -> check sums, check-sums, checks pngcheck.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sTER -> st Er, stet, steer pngcheck.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US brokensuite -> broken suite, broken-suite, brokenhearted pngcheck.src:67: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 67) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pngcheck-debuginfo-2.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm pngcheck-extras-debuginfo-2.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name pngcheck (none): E: no installed packages by name pngcheck-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name pngcheck-extras-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name pngcheck-extras (none): E: no installed packages by name pngcheck-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.sourceforge.net/png-mng/pngcheck-2.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 77f0a039ac64df55fbd06af6f872fdbad4f639d009bbb5cd5cbe4db25690f35f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 77f0a039ac64df55fbd06af6f872fdbad4f639d009bbb5cd5cbe4db25690f35f Requires -------- pngcheck (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pngcheck-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pngcheck-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pngcheck-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pngcheck: pngcheck pngcheck(x86-64) pngcheck-extras: pngcheck-extras pngcheck-extras(x86-64) pngcheck-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pngcheck-debuginfo pngcheck-debuginfo(x86-64) pngcheck-debugsource: pngcheck-debugsource pngcheck-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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://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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
