https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013814 --- Comment #1 from Brian Lane <bcl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, this still needs a bit of work. You can find most of these things by running 'fedora-review -r -n libxo' in the directory with your .src.rpm file. The biggest problem I see is that the package isn't using the same source tarfile from upstream, it looks like it has been modified and repackaged. When possible upstream releases should be used as-is, and modified by the %prep stage in the spec or by applying patches. Some smaller issues: * Use the %{version} macro when referring to the version number in the spec. eg. the Source0 line, this makes it easier to update to the next version, you just need to edit the number in one place. * BuildRequires needs gcc added. Fedora is moving towards smaller buildroots and more explicit requirements. It works right now, but in the future you can't assume it will be present without requiring it. * In %prep use the %autosetup macro instead of %setup, this will apply any PatchXXX files automatically * The Patch0 should have a short description of why it is needed, either as a comment in the spec, or in the patch itself if it is from a git commit. * A number of the files are ending up in both libxo and libxo-devel: - include files should all be in -devel only - the library documentation in man3 should all be in -devel only - the .a and .pc files should only be in -devel - you don't need to have the man3 directory name in the %file section, the manpage directories are already present, just refer to the files or a suitable wildcard. * The .so files should not be wildcarded, this can lead to unexpected problems when the version number changes. Instead refer to them as their full filename, or eg. libenc*so.0 libenc*so.0.0.0 I also noticed that the src.rpm is using an el8 release. While it's possible to do this process on RHEL/CentOS it would be better to do it with Fedora. You can use a VM or a podmain container on RHEL if you need to. Here's the output of fedora-review (with my manual observations selected with X instead of x): Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: libxo : /usr/include/libxo/xo.h libxo : /usr/include/libxo/xo_encoder.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /root/libxo/libxo/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libxo, libxo-devel. Illegal package name: libxo. Does not provide -static: libxo, libxo-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [X]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [X]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 4-Clause License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "MIT License". 312 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/libxo/libxo/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/man/man3(filesystem) [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 2 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 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [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. [X]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: libxo : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libxo.pc [-]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Juniper/libxo/releases/download/1.6.0/libxo-1.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fca2d2d0c628d5a2b41e9dbe4ef1aa032e3680b2cb5c86a27e552a2eb8368bd7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f2f276d7a5f25ff6fbfc0f38773d854c9356e7f985501627d0c0ee336c19006 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- libxo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/sh ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libxo.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libxo-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/sh libenc_cbor.so.0()(64bit) libenc_csv.so.0()(64bit) libenc_test.so.0()(64bit) libxo(x86-64) libxo.so.0()(64bit) libxo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libxo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libxo: libenc_cbor.so.0()(64bit) libenc_csv.so.0()(64bit) libenc_test.so.0()(64bit) libxo libxo(x86-64) libxo.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(libxo) libxo-devel: libxo-devel libxo-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libxo) libxo-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libenc_cbor.so.0.0.0-1.6.0-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libenc_csv.so.0.0.0-1.6.0-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libenc_test.so.0.0.0-1.6.0-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libxo-debuginfo libxo-debuginfo(x86-64) libxo.so.0.0.0-1.6.0-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libxo-debugsource: libxo-debugsource libxo-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n libxo Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Java, PHP, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013814 _______________________________________________ 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
