https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989291 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks! This is closer. I do think there are a few things that should be re-examined, below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec) - The guidelines say: Every package that uses Python (at runtime and/or build time) and/or installs Python modules MUST explicitly include BuildRequires: python3-devel in its .spec file, even if Python is not actually invoked during build time. […] The *-devel package brings in relevant RPM macros. It may also enable automated or manual checks: for example, Python maintainers use this requirement to list packages that use Python in some way and might be affected by planned changes. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_buildrequire_python3_devel Therefore, you must replace BuildRequires: python3 python-srpm-macros with BuildRequires: python3-devel - The %{__cmake_builddir} macro is private and at risk of being removed. In an out-of-source build, it is the same as %{_vpath_builddir}, and you are supposed to use that instead. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros I am still not sure if you are trying to target EPEL with this spec file, but I have confirmed this works on EPEL8 (with “%undefine __cmake_in_source_build”), and I know you’re not targeting EPEL7 because it would require several other spec file changes. - Rpmlint reports: docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.3-3 docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.3-3 I am not aware of a guideline in Fedora on whether localized dates are acceptable in changelog dates. The guidelines request American English spelling in summary and description fields, and the changelogs are also visible to end users (“rpm -q --changelog …”), so I’m inclined to think that POSIX-locale (LC_TIME=C) date format would be better here. Furthermore, “rpmbuild” considers this date format an error, so I can’t even do “rpmbuild -bs” on a spec file with dates expanded this way. The thing is that you’re using %autochangelog, so the date format will be controlled by the locale on the koji builders once the package is imported, so I’m not sure if there’s anything you need to change here. You might need to re-build the source RPM with LC_TIME=C exported if you’re going to use “fedpkg import”. I wonder if some component (maybe rpmautospec? maybe some other things too?) should have an issue filed asking it not to respect system locale when formatting changelog dates. - While it is not harmful, you can remove %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp since you are not using %forgemeta/%forgesource, and you do not use %forgeurl0 explicitly anywhere in the spec file. - The description still 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 and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Contains developer headers and a library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code Notes (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 - 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/20211112/1989291-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. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. (%autochangelog generates localized dates; see Issues) [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. (except localized changelog dates; see Issues) [-]: 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 (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]: 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 docopt- cpp-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (based on 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. 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.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) docopt-cpp-debugsource: docopt-cpp-debugsource docopt-cpp-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm/docopt-cpp.spec 2021-11-12 10:25:36.796933902 -0500 +++ /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm-unpacked/docopt-cpp.spec 2021-11-12 08:40:02.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 3; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp @@ -82,3 +91,10 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.3-3 +- Add check section with tests running + +* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.3-2 +- Update descriptions according to review + +* St srp 04 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.3-1 +- Initial commit with %autorelease 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: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Java, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity 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: 6 docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug docopt-cpp.src: W: strange-permission docopt-cpp.spec 600 docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.3-3 docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6.3-3 docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation docopt-cpp.src: E: no-changelogname-tag docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3 docopt-cpp.spec:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease docopt-cpp.spec:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease 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 and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original. docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Contains developer headers and a library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/58/5e2a6642ef2d009f399be7c8ca0dcfab9530ff ../../../.build-id/58/5e2a6642ef2d009f399be7c8ca0dcfab9530ff 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 9 warnings, 13 badness; has taken 0.5 s -- 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=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
