https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895696 --- Comment #5 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > The fixed spec file: > https://github.com/ycollet/fedora-spec/blob/master/libsmf/libsmf.spec When pointing to the SPEC file, try to point directly to the raw file itself like so: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ycollet/fedora-spec/master/libsmf/libsmf.spec Artur, I hope it's okay to take it over. I saw the review request wasn't assigned to anyone. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55409673 > URL: https://github.com/stump/libsmf > > Source0: https://github.com/stump/%{name}/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz You can re-use URL in the Source0 field like so: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Also, any reason URL doesn't use %{name}? > BuildRequires: gcc gcc-c++ Split these into separate lines like the other BuildRequires. > %build > > autoreconf --force --install > %configure > %make_build > > doxygen doxygen.cfg > > %install > > %make_install > > install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ > cp -ra api %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ Please, remove the new lines after section headers. What about something like this? %build autoreconf --force --install %configure %make_build doxygen doxygen.cfg %install %make_install install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ cp -ra api %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ > %{_datadir}/man/man1/smfsh.* > %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/api/* - Documentation should go into a -doc subpackage. - Also, make sure something owns the %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/api/ subdir. > %files devel > %{_includedir}/* > %{_libdir}/libsmf.so > %{_libdir}/libsmf.la - This is not mandatory, but could you be slightly more specific about the packaged content inside %{_includedir}? - Also, libtool archives should not be packaged. Please, remove them at the end of the %build step. > %changelog > * Sat Nov 08 2020 Yann Collette <ycollette dot nospam at free.fr> 1.3-5 > - fix spec file Nov 8th was a Sunday. Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: libsmf-devel : /usr/lib64/libsmf.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1832960 bytes in 79 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libsmf/libsmf/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/share/doc/libsmf/api Review: Make sure this packageo owns the directory or make the -doc subpackage do it. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libsmf/api [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. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: Some outstanding issues mentioned earlier. [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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libsmf-static. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libsmf- static Review: Probably needed. [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1832960 bytes in /usr/share Review: Looks like the documentation files. Should be moved to a -doc subpackage. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsmf-1.3-5.fc34.x86_64.rpm libsmf-devel-1.3-5.fc34.x86_64.rpm libsmf-static-1.3-5.fc34.x86_64.rpm libsmf-debuginfo-1.3-5.fc34.x86_64.rpm libsmf-debugsource-1.3-5.fc34.x86_64.rpm libsmf-1.3-5.fc33.src.rpm libsmf.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C LibSMF libsmf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsmf-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsmf.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C LibSMF libsmf.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sat Nov 08 2020 Yann Collette <ycollette dot nospam at free.fr> 1.3-5 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsmf-debuginfo-1.3-5.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name libsmf-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name libsmf-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name libsmf (none): E: no installed packages by name libsmf-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name libsmf-static 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/stump/libsmf/archive/libsmf-1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6f899897f1cf07f392d869456058c36b3ea17a8887ba1672c14b41d18bb4794 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6f899897f1cf07f392d869456058c36b3ea17a8887ba1672c14b41d18bb4794 Requires -------- libsmf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libsmf.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsmf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsmf(x86-64) libsmf.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) libsmf-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsmf-devel(x86-64) libsmf-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsmf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libsmf: libsmf libsmf(x86-64) libsmf.so.0()(64bit) libsmf-devel: libsmf-devel libsmf-devel(x86-64) libtool(/usr/lib64/libsmf.la) pkgconfig(smf) libsmf-static: libsmf-static libsmf-static(x86-64) libsmf-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsmf-debuginfo libsmf-debuginfo(x86-64) libsmf-debugsource: libsmf-debugsource libsmf-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
