https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229282 --- Comment #4 from Gabriel Somlo <somlo@xxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the review! (In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > The Obsoletes are correct, but the provides should be this for the main > package: > > Provides: %{prjname} = %{version}-%{release} > > and similarly for the devel subpackage: > > Provides: %{prjname}-devel = %{version}-%{release} The way I'm reading the instructions at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages , it should be: Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR where "$provEVR refers to an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple the original unchanged package would have had if it had been version or release bumped." In other words, the obsoleted package's "next-up" EVR, not the "%{version}-%{release}" of the *new* package. That makes sense to me, intuitively, as the new package should be an "update" for the obsoleted one. Let me know what you think. > Otherwise, everything looks good. Are you planning to build this for > Rawhide only, or also for F37 or F38? I was plannin on F38 and rawhide, but if you want me to do f37 as well, I can -- please advise! :) Thanks again, --Gabriel > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [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]: Package contains no static executables. > [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", "MIT (old)", "BSD 3-Clause License", > "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause > License". 1588 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2229282-yosyshq-abc/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [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. > [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. > [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 9112 bytes in 2 files. > [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. > [x]: Package functions as described. > [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. > [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. > [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 > ------- > Checking: yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm > yosyshq-abc-libs-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm > yosyshq-abc-devel-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm > yosyshq-abc-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm > yosyshq-abc-debugsource-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm > yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.src.rpm > ================================================ 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 > rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_uf4n8i1')] > checks: 31, packages: 6 > > yosyshq-abc.spec:83: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(glucose) > yosyshq-abc.spec:85: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(minisat2) > yosyshq-abc.spec:87: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(satoko) > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/Constants.h > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/Constants.h > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/IntTypes.h > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/IntTypes.h > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/pstdint.h > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/pstdint.h > ================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, > 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s ================= > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: > yosyshq-abc-libs-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm > yosyshq-abc-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm > ================================================ 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 > rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplcmidgrm')] > checks: 31, packages: 2 > > ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, > 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ================= > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ 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: 6 > > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/Constants.h > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/Constants.h > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/IntTypes.h > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/IntTypes.h > yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/pstdint.h > /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/pstdint.h > 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has > taken 2.0 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/YosysHQ/abc/archive/ > bb64142b07794ee685494564471e67365a093710/abc-bb64142.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > de98237d4d9329b0b0b8b3dca5f741ac8541974cf88aaa8775138ba9d6f29545 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > de98237d4d9329b0b0b8b3dca5f741ac8541974cf88aaa8775138ba9d6f29545 > > > Requires > -------- > yosyshq-abc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libabc.so.0()(64bit) > libc.so.6()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64) > > yosyshq-abc-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > glibc > libbz2.so.1()(64bit) > 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) > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > libreadline.so.8()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) > libz.so.1()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > yosyshq-abc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libabc.so.0()(64bit) > yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64) > > yosyshq-abc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > yosyshq-abc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > yosyshq-abc: > abc > yosyshq-abc > yosyshq-abc(x86-64) > > yosyshq-abc-libs: > abc-libs > bundled(cudd) > bundled(glucose) > bundled(minisat2) > bundled(satoko) > libabc.so.0()(64bit) > yosyshq-abc-libs > yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64) > > yosyshq-abc-devel: > abc-devel > yosyshq-abc-devel > yosyshq-abc-devel(x86-64) > > yosyshq-abc-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > yosyshq-abc-debuginfo > yosyshq-abc-debuginfo(x86-64) > > yosyshq-abc-debugsource: > yosyshq-abc-debugsource > yosyshq-abc-debugsource(x86-64) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2229282 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ > Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, Java, fonts, Haskell, > Ocaml, Python, R > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2229282 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202229282%23c4 _______________________________________________ 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
