https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233278 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This is a false positive due to the vendor tarball. The "cc" crate in Fedora already depends on gcc / gcc-c++. - Package contains no static executables. Note: Static executables found: serde_derive-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables This is a false positive due to the vendor tarball. Versions of serde_derive between 1.0.171 and 1.0.185 contained pre-compiled code, but the Fedora package for serde_derive never did. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. License breakdown is automatically generated during the build. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Vendored dependencies are removed in %prep. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4318 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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [~]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests (as far as I can tell). [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]: 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). This is expected for packages that use rpmautospec. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: glycin-loaders-0.1~beta.2-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm glycin-loaders-debuginfo-0.1~beta.2-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm glycin-loaders-debugsource-0.1~beta.2-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm glycin-loaders-0.1~beta.2-2.fc40.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/tmpl1nrskdu')] checks: 31, packages: 4 glycin-loaders.src: W: strange-permission glycin-loaders.spec 600 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s This warning is expected for rpmautospec, but will be fixed with the next release. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: glycin-loaders-debuginfo-0.1~beta.2-2.fc40.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/tmphj4igglm')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/glycin-loaders/0.1/glycin-loaders-0.1.beta.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1b0c701f33035455894df98afc212820248b131272b83bfbdbf83510e19c8813 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b0c701f33035455894df98afc212820248b131272b83bfbdbf83510e19c8813 Requires -------- glycin-loaders (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(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_2.7.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) glycin-loaders-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glycin-loaders-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- glycin-loaders: glycin-loaders glycin-loaders(x86-64) glycin-loaders-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) glycin-loaders-debuginfo glycin-loaders-debuginfo(x86-64) glycin-loaders-debugsource: glycin-loaders-debugsource glycin-loaders-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/deca/Downloads/2233278-glycin-loaders/srpm/glycin-loaders.spec 2023-08-21 23:30:02.063727747 +0200 +++ /home/deca/Downloads/2233278-glycin-loaders/srpm-unpacked/glycin-loaders.spec 2023-08-21 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global tarball_version %%(echo %{version} | tr '~' '.') @@ -78,3 +88,9 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Aug 21 2023 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1~beta.2-2 +- Update the license tag to reflect the licenses of all rust dependencies +- Use LGPL-2.1-only for the project license until we get confirmation from + upstream + +* Mon Aug 21 2023 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1~beta.2-1 +- Initial Fedora packaging Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2233278 -o --enablerepo local Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, R, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH === Package looks good to me, just a few non-blocking notes that should maybe be addressed before importing the package: 1. It looks like there are no tests (neither defined in meson or in cargo), so you could drop the %check section. 2. You're missing the "%bcond_with(out) check". Not defining this can mess with cargo macros, especially %cargo_generate_buildrequires. In this case, it doesn't matter, because there aren't any test dependencies or tests, but keep this in mind. In almost all cases, if you're using the RPM macros for cargo, you will want to define either "%bcond_without check" or "%bcond_with check". 3. Upstream released v0.1-beta.3 alongside v0.1.0-beta.3 of glycin-utils and glycin crates. Please update as soon as possible to match the other two components. 4. Please replace "BR: rust-packaging" with "BR: cargo-rpm-macros". The former no longer exists and is only provided by the latter for backwards compatibility. 5. The dependency on pkgconfig(gtk4) seems to be a noop? It's declared as a dependency in meson.build, but not assigned to an object or used anywhere. Not sure what's up with that. -- 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=2233278 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233278%23c10 _______________________________________________ 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
