https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258110 --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The patch 0001-Move-install-tree-to-usr-bin.patch lacks an upstream bug link or comment. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment It appears to do two things: - It changes the default PREFIX from /usr/local to /usr. This is a good idea and can be downstream-only, but you don’t need a patch. Instead, you can just use %make_install PREFIX='%{_prefix}' - It uses sha512sum instead of md5sum to create a checksum file in the dist target. This (1) is an unrelated change that should probably not be bundled in the same patch file, (2), has no effect at all on the RPM build, and (3) is the kind of thing that should be offered upstream, since md5 checksums are only useful for detecting corruption, not tampering Overall, I suggest dropping this patch and just setting PREFIX in %install. - The patch 0002-Checked-return-of-asprintf-for-lack-of-memory-and-er.patch lacks an upstream bug link or comment. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment The patch contents look reasonable, but should be offered upstream. - This is a good workaround: %{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{_bindir} but it would be best if you could instead offer upstream a patch for the Makefile install target that creates $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX)/bin/ before trying to copy things into it. If you’re going to use the workaround, it would be better written as: mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir} or install -d %{buildroot}%{_bindir} since ”…macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used. For example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}.” https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros - Man pages are always desired, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages but in this case upstream does not provide one and help2man doesn’t really work here, so any man pages would have to be hand-written. No man pages are required for approval, but I’m happy to write them based on the --help output and offer them in a follow-up PR, if you’re willing to update them in the unlikely event that the command-line options ever change. - The changelog entry is missing the version, i.e., * Thu Jan 11 2024 Stephen Smoogen <ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx> should be * Thu Jan 11 2024 Stephen Smoogen <ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2-1 as reported by rpmlint: phytool.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog - The cp command in the install target of the Makefile lacks the -p option. This has several consequences: - The timestamp is not preserved, which it ought to be - The executable bit is lost when installing to the buildroot, which is why you needed to write %attr(0755,root,root) %{_bindir}/phytool in the %files section - To make things worse, the buildroot policy scripts responsible for generating debuginfo don’t run because the binary isn’t executable when they see it. Therefore, the phytool binary isn’t stripped, phytool.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/phytool and this is why you didn’t get usable debuginfo and had to add # Turn off debug_package to escape empty file error. %global debug_package %{nil} to make the package buildable. The best fix for all of this would be to patch the -p option into the Makefile and offer the fix upstream, then remove “%attr(0755,root,root)” and “%global debug_package %{nil}”. ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258110-phytool/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I had to add SHELL='sh -x' to %make_build to verify this, since automake-style V=1 doesn’t have any effect here. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. The changelog entry is missing the version. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. The cause is explained in Issues. [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 2634 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. An interactive “smoke test” showed that the program produced output, but I didn’t try it on a real interface. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111850297 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream does not provide any tests, and particular hardware would be required for meaningful testing. [!]: 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 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: phytool-2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm phytool-2-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmps017uio1')] checks: 31, packages: 2 phytool.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/phytool phytool.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog phytool.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog phytool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mv6tool phytool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phytool 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1 phytool.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/phytool phytool.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog phytool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mv6tool phytool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phytool 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wkz/phytool//releases/download/v2/phytool-2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9901a14e8c6af02b7333c60b21ff81f50620e8326d54827185e5617ff9b11d21 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9901a14e8c6af02b7333c60b21ff81f50620e8326d54827185e5617ff9b11d21 Requires -------- phytool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- phytool: phytool phytool(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258110 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Python 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=2258110 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258110%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
