https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006 --- Comment #37 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- FIX: Missing an Url tag in the spec file pointing to an upstream. Did you mean <https://github.com/jcbf/smf-spf>? FIX: Source0 looks like a VCS snapshot. Put a URL you cloned it from into a comment above Source0 tag <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_revision_control>. Or use a URL of the snapshot if the upstream VCS hosting system supports it. FIX: Version does not follow a schema for snapshots <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots>. Consider what would happen if you need to upgrade to a "051e937" snapshot of a 2.5.1-post release. In your current schema the new version would sort lower than the old version. Summary verified from README.md. Ok. Description is Ok. Licenses found: GPL-2.0 text: COPYING MIT: .devcontainer/Dockerfile BSD-3-like: tests/04-fixed-client-auth-fail.lua GPL-3.0 text: LICENSE GPL-2.0-or-later: smf-spf.c License tag is Ok. TODO: It looks like the tests come from The Trusted Domain Project which uses <https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenDKIM/blob/master/LICENSE>. That license requires carrying the license text. However, I cannot see the license text anywhere in the source archive. You should clarify with the upstream an origin of the tests. If upstream confirms it, the upstream and you need to supply the missing license text. FIX: Remove "rm -rf spf2" command from %prep. There is no such directory in the archive. TODO: Use "install -m0644" instead of "cp -a" for copying the additional sources. A mode of the files is undefined. It depends on umask of the host which builds the package. FIX: Remove a duplicate "BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros". FIX: Remove "Requires(pre): shadow-utils". A correct dependency is handled with "%{?sysusers_requires_compat}" macro. FIX: Build-requires "coreutils" (smf-spf.spec:52). FIX: Build-require "make" (smf-spf.spec:49). FIX: The README.rpm is out-dated. "service", "chkconfig" commands are now replaced with systemctl. Recommendation to install dependencies like libspf2 and sendmail is pointless. These are handled with RPM run-time dependencies of this package. If sendmail-cf is required, then smf-spf or sendmail should run-require it. FIX: The lua script still fails: error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:16: invalid sysuser type: #Type 3< (%lua) 2< (%add_sysuser) Have you tried removing a first line with the comment from the file? At this step the file is interpreted by Lua script of rpmbuild to generated RPM Provides and it's possible that the script does not support comments. $ rpmlint smf-spf.spec ../SRPMS/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-* ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 5 smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/smfs smfs smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/smfs smfs smf-spf.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/smfs 700 smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-url-tag smf-spf-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag smf-spf-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-url-tag smf-spf.src: W: no-url-tag smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smf-spf smf-spf.spec:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 26, tab: line 1) smf-spf.spec:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 26, tab: line 1) smf-spf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937.tar.gz smf-spf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937.tar.gz smf-spf.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5.1-1 ['2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39', '2.5.1.061e937-1'] smf-spf.x86_64: E: file-parent-ownership-mismatch Path "/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock" owned by "root" is stored in directory owned by "smfs" ======== 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s ======== TODO: Replace tabs with spaced in the spec file to achieve uniformity. FIX: Correct a version in the changelog entry. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 4 02:00 /etc/mail/smfs -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4731 Jul 4 02:00 /etc/mail/smfs/smf-spf.conf drwx------ 2 smfs smfs 0 Jul 4 02:00 /run/smfs -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jul 4 02:00 /run/smfs/smf-spf.sock drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/63 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 28 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/63/871eac7cfe0ef118abbb75bb4b0be08fe978f8 -> ../../../../usr/sbin/smf-spf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 213 Nov 19 2020 /usr/lib/systemd/system/smf-spf.service -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 145 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/lib/sysusers.d/smfs.conf -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 36992 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/sbin/smf-spf drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/share/doc/smf-spf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2140 Apr 23 2022 /usr/share/doc/smf-spf/ChangeLog -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2235 Nov 19 2020 /usr/share/doc/smf-spf/README.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5201 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/share/doc/smf-spf/readme drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jul 4 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/smf-spf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25383 Apr 23 2022 /usr/share/licenses/smf-spf/COPYING FIX: smf-spf.sysusers declares /var/lib/smfs as a home directory, but that directory is not packaged. I think you should use "-" or "/run/smfs" instead. See sysusers.d(5) manual page. FIX: /run/smfs directory disappears on reboot because /run is tmpfs. Use <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Tmpfiles.d/> for creating one with correct ownership and mode. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 4 /bin/sh 1 config(smf-spf) = 2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) 1 libmilter.so.1.0()(64bit) 1 libspf2.so.2()(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) 1 sendmail >= 8.12 1 shadow-utils TODO: Does this mail filter work only with sendmail? If it also works with postfix, the package should depend on "(sendmail or postfix)". $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 config(smf-spf) = 2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39 1 group(smfs) 1 smf-spf = 2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39 1 smf-spf(x86-64) = 2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39 1 user(smfs) = dSBzbWZzIC0gIlNtYXJ0IFNlbmRtYWlsIEZpbHRlcnMiIC92YXIvbGliL3NtZnMgL3NiaW4vbm9sb2dpbgAA Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok. The package builds in F39 <https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103209562>. Ok. Otherwise, the package is in line with Fedora packaging guidelines. Please correct the FIX items, consider fixing TODO items, and provide a new spec file. -- 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=1877006 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c37 _______________________________________________ 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
