https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1973682 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(riehecky@xxxxxxxx |in.net) |) --- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- We’re getting closer and closer! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages The fedora-review text above covers this pretty well. This: %{_libdir}/lib%{srcname}*.so needs to be moved to the %files section for the -devel. You might then want to change Summary: %{summary} development headers (which expands to “Diff JSON and JSON-like structures development headers”, which is a little nonsensical anyway), to: Summary: Development files for %{name} - I haven’t looked into this: jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet++.so libjsonnet++.so.0.17.0 jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet.so libjsonnet.so.0.17.0 but hopefully it’s related to the above. You can run “fedora-review -n jsonnet” in a directory with the jsonnet spec file and source RPM (and as a user belonging to the “mock” group) to find out for yourself if this is resolved. - While it’s not wrong, %package -n %{srcname}-devel would be much more simply written as %package devel and the same for the corresponding %description and files section. (Changing this is not mandatory.) - In fact, since you are not relying on %{pypi_source} (which uses %srcname or %pypi_name if set), and the package base name is the same as the Python metadata name and importable module name, you don’t have to set %srcname at all. You could just drop %global srcname jsonnet and write Name: jsonnet and then use %{name} instead of %{srcname} everywhere else in the file. (The %name macro is automatically set based on the Name field.) (Changing this is not mandatory.) - Here, %if 0%{?fedora} && 0%{?fedora} == 34 the first conditional is redundant, as %fedora will always be set and nonzero when it is set to 34. You could just write: %if 0%{?fedora} == 34 (Changing this is not mandatory.) - The Source0 url could be improved in two ways: you can use the %url macro to write it more concisely, and (as a GitHub-specific thing) you can write it in a form that gives you a nicer tarball name. Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz (Changing this is not mandatory.) - Man pages are always desired for command-line executables (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages). Unfortunately, help2man doesn’t generate very satisfactory output. If you are willing to maintain a pair of hand-written downstream man pages in groff_man(7) format, I can supply them—perhaps as a PR once the package is approved. - In general, it’s good to build the documentation if needed and include it in a -doc subpackage. In this case, there are some issues: it bundles CodeMirror, js-yaml, and MathJax (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling), and these include pre-compiled JavaScript (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/#_compilationminification) and CSS (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/#_css). Additionally, these include assets under various additional licenses. It may be possible to deal with all of this and build the documentation anyway, but I don’t want to hold up the package review on trying to do so. If I have some time later, I’ll consider working on this and making a PR. For now, I suggest removing the problematic assets in %prep: # Remove bundled and pre-minified web assets rm -rf doc/third_party and leaving the documentation unpackaged. Note that if you do package it, doc/_layouts/base.html says the documentation is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 (Fedora: CC-BY). - You should add CONTRIBUTING to %doc, alongside README.md. - Rpmlint reports: jsonnet.src:48: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 48) Please fix this. ===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License", "NTP License", "Expat License", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* LaTeX Project Public License v1.0". 1117 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1973682-jsonnet/licensecheck.txt Bundled web assets with other licenses are not packaged, so the License field is correct. However, the bundled third-party web assets should be removed in %prep for other reasons; see Issues. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. However, bundled web assets should be removed in %prep as mentioned in Issues. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. However, pre-minified or pre-compiled JavaScript and CSS must be removed in %prep. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package As noted in Issues, the unversioned .so file belongs in -devel. [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 20480 bytes in 2 files. As noted in Issues, there are obstacles to packaging the documentation. Ideally, the documentation can be built later and packaged in a -doc subpackage together with the examples. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [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]: 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: [-]: 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 python3-jsonnet This is not required since libjsonnet is statically linked into the Python extension module. [x]: Package functions as described. (based on the tests passing) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm python3-jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-devel-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-debugsource-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.src.rpm jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet++.so libjsonnet++.so.0.17.0 jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet.so libjsonnet.so.0.17.0 jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnet jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnetfmt python3-jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation jsonnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-thilo) jsonnet.src:83: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/* jsonnet.src:84: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib jsonnet.src:48: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 48) 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- jsonnet: /usr/lib64/libjsonnet++.so jsonnet: /usr/lib64/libjsonnet.so python3-jsonnet: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/_jsonnet.cpython-310-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/jsonnet/archive/refs/tags/v0.17.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe Requires -------- jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) jsonnet-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet(aarch-64) jsonnet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jsonnet: bundled(md5-thilo) jsonnet jsonnet(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so.0()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) python3-jsonnet: python-jsonnet python3-jsonnet python3-jsonnet(aarch-64) python3.10-jsonnet python3.10dist(jsonnet) python3dist(jsonnet) jsonnet-devel: jsonnet-devel jsonnet-devel(aarch-64) jsonnet-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jsonnet-debuginfo jsonnet-debuginfo(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet++.so.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet++.so.0.17.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet.so-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0.17.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) jsonnet-debugsource: jsonnet-debugsource jsonnet-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973682 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, PHP, R, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
