https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989291 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c |in.net) |om) --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The spec file has mixed tabs and spaces. See rpmlint output: docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13) docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13) You can fix this with: sed -r -i 's/\t/ /g' docopt-cpp.spec - The description contains lines longer than 80 characters. Please wrap to 80 characters or narrower. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description See rpmlint output: docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support). docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support). - The Summary in the -devel package should start with a capital letter if practical. Instead of: Summary: developer files for a docopt C++11 Port consider: Summary: Developer files for a docopt C++11 Port Similarly, I think a better summary for the base package would be the one under “About” on the upstream GitHub page: Summary: C++11 port of docopt See rpmlint output: docopt-cpp.src: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized developer files for a docopt C++11 Port - The changelog is not correctly formatted. Change: * Mon Aug 02 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> to: * Mon Aug 02 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6.3-1 See rpmlint output: docopt-cpp.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog - You can and should build and run the tests. Add: BuildRequires: python3-devel Change %cmake %cmake_build to %cmake -DWITH_TESTS=ON %cmake_build 2to3 -w %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests %py3_shebang_fix %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests and add %check %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests after the %install section. ===== Suggestions (no change required) ===== - This is not required in any current Fedora release: %undefine __cmake_in_source_build since out-of-source builds are the default. I suggest removing it *unless* you plan to support EPEL8 from the same spec file. Relevant documentation: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros - This is pointless and can be removed since you are not actually using %forgemeta and %forgesource: %global tag0 v%{version} In fact, since v%{version} is the tag that is “guessed” for packaging a release from GitHub, it would be pointless even if you were using %forgemeta and %forgesource. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_release_example for relevant documentation. - Instead of repeating the main description text, you can do something like: %global common_description %{expand: \ docopt creates beautiful command-line interfaces Isn't it awesome how getopt (and boost::program_options for you fancy folk!) generate help messages based on your code?! These timeless functions have been around for decades and have proven we don’t need anything better, right? Hell no! You know what’s awesome? It’s when the option parser is generated based on the beautiful help message that you write yourself! This way you don’t need to write this stupid repeatable parser-code, and instead can write only the help message-the way you want it.} %description %{common_description} […] %description devel %{common_description} This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support). Contains developer headers and library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code to be compiled. (This is a common pattern in Python packaging.) - I am not sure what either these messages are about. I don’t see any problems, so perhaps they are spurious: docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3 docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2 - This message seems to be complaining that the library major version is not in the package name, which is not something the Fedora guidelines ask for. I don’t think anything needs to be changed here. docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 ===== 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. [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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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). [?]: 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]: 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]: 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: [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp/archive/v0.6.3/docopt-cpp-0.6.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632 Requires -------- docopt-cpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) docopt-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(x86-64) docopt-cpp(x86-64) libdocopt.so.0()(64bit) docopt-cpp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): docopt-cpp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- docopt-cpp: docopt-cpp docopt-cpp(x86-64) libdocopt.so.0()(64bit) docopt-cpp-devel: cmake(docopt) docopt-cpp-devel docopt-cpp-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(docopt) docopt-cpp-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) docopt-cpp-debuginfo docopt-cpp-debuginfo(x86-64) libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) docopt-cpp-debugsource: docopt-cpp-debugsource docopt-cpp-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1989291 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 docopt-cpp.src: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized developer files for a docopt C++11 Port docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 docopt-cpp.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13) docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13) docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3 docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2 docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support). docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support). 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings, 6 badness; has taken 0.3 s -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989291 _______________________________________________ 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
