https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 --- Comment #11 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> --- Here goes: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. * Add the following %check section to your spec file between the %install and %files sections: %check desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop If in the future you may want to run any tests, this is the place to add them. Also, since atomes is a graphical desktop application, we should add an AppStream metadata XML file, so that it gets picked up by software-center-type graphical installers, take a look at https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/ - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ To simplify things, tag a 1.1.6 release in the upstream repository (which I suppose is https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes) and use that as your source tarball, i.e.: Source0: https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz Upstream you are using the name Atomes (with a capital "A"), so if you happen to add it to the tarball name, you can define a global variable in the beginning of the spec file, e.g. upname, to refer to that and not worry about uppercase and lowercase letters: %global upname Atomes You could then change the source URL to: Source0: https://github.com/Slookeur/%{upname}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz Remember that when you are wearing your upstream developer hat, you are free to change whatever version number you feel like and you know nothing about Fedora's release number. With your packager hat on, you can only increment the release number, you can't change whatever number your developer self has used for the version. Try to manage the ensuing schizophrenia… ===== 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later". 702 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/licensecheck.txt As far as I can tell, the files with licenses other than Affero are only used during compilation and they are not part of the binary package, so everything is good there. However, the license mentioned in "COPYING" is "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0" (AGPLv3), whereas in src/affero.h you have "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later" (AGPLv3+). If it's an oversight, change the one that is wrong, otherwise the effective license becomes the more restrictive one. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. *** remember to tag the 1.1.6 release (or whatever subsequent number you decide) [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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). *** You can replace any instance of "atomes" with "%{name}" for the added fun [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 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. *** As part of the review process, you should have provided a link to a successful scratch build in koji. COPR is fine and all, but it's not the "official" build system. Here's one for you: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92962219 [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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. *** I need to RTFM and I had only an .xyz file with a graphene sheet with 1500 atoms at hand, but I'd say it does. [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 occurs outside of %prep. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. *** See the note above about desktop-file-validate. Once we prepare the AppStream metadata file, you'll also need to add a check for that as well. [-]: 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: [!]: 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) [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 7710720 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: *** When running rpmlint locally, I get this: atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/atomes-1.1.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/atomes-1.1.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation atomes-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{gpgverify} atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2} atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1} atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0} atomes.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: ./atomes-1.1.6.tar.gz.asc atomes.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ./atomes-1.1.6.tar.gz atomes-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/63/87711d22856dbdedd43a6fa85603b1e6bae1ab ../../../.build-id/63/87711d22856dbdedd43a6fa85603b1e6bae1ab I'm not really sure about the debuginfo warnings and error and I've seen them in other packages, maybe it's worth asking on devel about them. As for the "macro-in-comment" warnings, when you want to comment out a line that contains a macro, you need to add an extra percent sign to comment out the existing ones, i.e. your %prep line should be changed to this: %prep # %%{gpgverify} --keyring='%%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%%{SOURCE1}' --data='%%{SOURCE0}' Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/atomes.gpg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5e5e75c29719f5f32ca9e688cbc3df56606300ed0833525f47b2665e8ae1f8bb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e5e75c29719f5f32ca9e688cbc3df56606300ed0833525f47b2665e8ae1f8bb https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/atomes-1.1.6.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48e97ef5e4afd3e2a836bf0a070cf91fd7743273f29f5200120ba2727a201549 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3bb3a2e2a070ae403a130cd777eef3911cc8f85e6e74c6ad98f09243eef3e594 https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/atomes-1.1.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e426d08db21b20f9b3bb07e3df9b52d1e407615ff9ae1def453a1b90469e701b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e426d08db21b20f9b3bb07e3df9b52d1e407615ff9ae1def453a1b90469e701b diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- atomes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bash-completion desktop-file-utils freeglut gtk3 libavcodec.so.59()(64bit) libavcodec.so.59(LIBAVCODEC_59)(64bit) libavformat.so.59()(64bit) libavformat.so.59(LIBAVFORMAT_59)(64bit) libavutil.so.57()(64bit) libavutil.so.57(LIBAVUTIL_57)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libepoxy.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libswscale.so.6()(64bit) libswscale.so.6(LIBSWSCALE_6)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.5)(64bit) mesa-libGLU rtld(GNU_HASH) atomes-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): atomes-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- atomes: application() application(atomes.desktop) atomes atomes(x86-64) mimehandler(application/x-extension-apf) mimehandler(application/x-extension-awf) atomes-debuginfo: atomes-debuginfo atomes-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) atomes-debugsource: atomes-debugsource atomes-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/srpm/atomes.spec 2022-10-12 21:34:42.309784359 +0200 +++ /home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/srpm-unpacked/atomes.spec 2022-10-12 17:40:53.000000000 +0200 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Summary: An atomistic toolbox License: AGPLv3+ -Source0: https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz -Source1: https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz.asc -Source2: https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/atomes.gpg +Source0: ./%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Source1: ./%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz.asc +Source2: atomes.gpg URL: https://atomes.ipcms.fr/ Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2130607 -v Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Perl, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Try to address the issues marked with "!" on the checklist and my comments, we're getting there! -- 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=2130607 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
