https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: enkiTS : /usr/share/doc/enkiTS/Timer.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages OK, because these sources are documentation and belong to the example. However: * Consider replacing %doc example/*.cpp %doc example/*.c %doc example/*.h with %doc example/ so that the example is packaged in %{_pkgdocdir}/example/ rather than directly in %{_pkgdocdir}. Otherwise, it’s kind of unclear why there are a bunch of source files in the documentation directory. * Consider packaging the example with the -devel subpackage. They are perhaps not large enough to require a separate -doc or -examples subpackage, but at the same time, they are three times as large as teh compiled shared library, and are pretty much only useful for developers, so this seems a good compromise for minimizing the “weight” of the base package that things will be depending on at runtime. Alternatively, a separate noarch -doc or -examples package subpackage would be acceptable. - The package needs to own /usr/include/enkiTS. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ At minimum, change %{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/LockLessMultiReadPipe.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler_c.h to %dir %{_includedir}/enkiTS/ %{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/LockLessMultiReadPipe.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler_c.h but you could also choose to simplify this to %{_includedir}/enkiTS/ so you don’t have to worry about explicitly listing the headers. Similarly, you *might* prefer to write %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/enkiTS %{_libdir}/cmake/enkiTS/*.cmake as %{_libdir}/cmake/enkiTS/ but there is nothing wrong with it as-is. - The %{__cmake_builddir} macro “is suitable only for rare compatibility reasons. For normal out-of-source builds, this macro is the same as %_vpath_builddir. It may be removed in the future.” https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros Therefore, please change %{__cmake_builddir}/TestAll to %{_vpath_builddir}/TestAll - Using forge macros to do snapshot versioning is OK, but versioning with the snapshot information in the Release field is a deprecated style: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#traditional-versioning Plus, if you are already using the forge macros, why write the URL manually? Consider changing %global forgeurl https://github.com/dougbinks/enkiTS %global commit 8c13c08744f7515da13684d46bf8f279a5b94ab2 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) %forgemeta […] License: Zlib URL: %{forgeurl} Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz to %global forgeurl https://github.com/dougbinks/enkiTS %global version0 1.11 %global commit 8c13c08744f7515da13684d46bf8f279a5b94ab2 %forgemeta […] License: Zlib URL: %{forgeversion} Source: %{forgesource} For documentation, see the comments in: https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/forge-srpm-macros/tree/main/item/rpm/macros.d/macros.forge ===== Notes (change not required for approval) ===== - You do not need to number the sole Source; you can change “Source0:” to “Source:” ===== 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]: 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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2253491-enkiTS/licensecheck.txt License is correctly identified as Zlib. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src/debug, /usr, /usr/include, /usr/share, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/include/enkiTS, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib64, /usr/src Most of these are spurious diagnostics (fedora-review bug). [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src/debug, /usr/src, /usr/share, /usr/include/enkiTS, /usr/include, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib64, /usr/share/licenses, /usr Most of these are spurious diagnostics (fedora-review bug), but the package does need to own /usr/include/enkiTS. [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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 117784 bytes in 23 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as otherwise mentioned) [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 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]: 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]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118452809 [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]: 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: [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: enkiTS-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-devel-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-debuginfo-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-debugsource-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.src.rpm ============================================================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpq6zkmxec')] checks: 32, packages: 5 enkiTS.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 70% enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation enkiTS.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.11-1 ['1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41', '1.11-1.git8c13c08'] enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary ====================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 54 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ======================================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: enkiTS-debuginfo-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================================================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpeklo16fk')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ======================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 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: 4 enkiTS.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 70% enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation enkiTS.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.11-1 ['1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41', '1.11-1.git8c13c08'] enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 49 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dougbinks/enkiTS/archive/8c13c08744f7515da13684d46bf8f279a5b94ab2/enkiTS-8c13c08.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d04ae2bd83ee98802b4c4d4c77feec2022dfd29f70aacd74d85b28094f0a80ca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d04ae2bd83ee98802b4c4d4c77feec2022dfd29f70aacd74d85b28094f0a80ca Requires -------- enkiTS (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) enkiTS-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) enkiTS(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1()(64bit) enkiTS-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): enkiTS-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- enkiTS: enkiTS enkiTS(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1()(64bit) enkiTS-devel: cmake(enkiTS) cmake(enkits) enkiTS-devel enkiTS-devel(x86-64) enkiTS-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) enkiTS-debuginfo enkiTS-debuginfo(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1.11-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) enkiTS-debugsource: enkiTS-debugsource enkiTS-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253491 --mock-options=--dnf Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, R, Python, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Haskell 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=2253491 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202253491%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
