https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315886 --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This mostly looks quite good, but there are a few things that need to be looked at before the package can be approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The License field does not appear to be correct. I confirmed that contents of JSON-Schema-Test-Suite-23.2.0.tar.gz are MIT, and "JSON License" appears spurious. However, the test suite is not incorporated in the binary RPMs and does not affect their licenses. While valijson-1.0.3/README.md mentions the MIT license, triggering licensecheck, it refers to a web-based demo not included in the source distribution. Instead, “Valijson is licensed under the Simplified BSD License.” The text of valijson-1.0.3/LICENSE appears to match BSD-2-Clause. There were two files correctly detected by licensecheck as BSL-1.0. valijson-1.0.3/examples/valijson_nlohmann_bundled.hpp valijson-1.0.3/include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp The first is a bundled copy of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json. You’re already not packaging the examples; I think you should make this explicit in %prep: # Remove the examples to prove we are not distributing them, or any bundled # libraries therein: rm -rv examples/ The second is derived from (but not an exact copy of) an unknown version of Boost. It does ship with the library, and needs to be accounted for. Something like this should work: # The entire source is BSD-2-Clause, except: # BSL-1.0: # - examples/valijson_nlohmann_bundled.hpp (removed in %%prep) # - include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp # Additionally, Source1 is MIT, but is used only for testing and does not # contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. License: BSD-2-Clause AND BSL-1.0 Then, to be strictly correct: # include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp is derived/forked from an unknown # release of the Boost.Optional library Provides: bundled(boost) - It’s good and correct that you added Requires to valijson-devel for things that appear in the API headers. However, based on grepping the headers, I think that Requires: cmake(gtest) is spurious and can be omitted. - Please replace pushd %{__cmake_builddir} with pushd %{_vpath_builddir} See the comments on %__cmake_builddir in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros. - Since this is a header-only library, you must add Provides: valijson-static = %{version}-%{release} to the devel subpackage. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries ===== Suggestions/Comments (no change required for approval) ===== - It would indeed be good to try to investigate the failing tests. I can’t reproduce them in an upstream checkout: $ gh repo clone tristanpenman/valijson $ cd valijson $ git submodule update --init --recursive $ cmake -S. -Bbuild -Dvalijson_BUILD_TESTS:BOOL=ON $ cmake --build build/ -j16 --verbose $ cd build $ ./test_suite - Personally, I like writing directories in files lists with trailing slashes so that they only match directories and not files, and so that it is clear to the reader that a recursively-included directory is intended. For example, instead of %{_includedir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name} I would write %{_includedir}/%{name}/ %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/ However, there is no guideline prescribing this, and it is ultimately a matter of opinion. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* JSON License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 649 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/licensecheck.txt License should be BSD-2-Clause AND BSL-1.0; see Issues. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Since include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp is derived/forked from Boost, we should add virtual Provides; see Issues. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See Issues; Requires: cmake(gtest) appears to be spurious in the devel package. [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 15474 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. Tests mostly pass, but there are some odd unexplained failures. [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=124823856 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests mostly pass, but there are some odd unexplained failures. [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: [!]: 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). See: (this test has no URL) OK: differences are due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: valijson-devel-1.0.3-6.fc42.x86_64.rpm valijson-1.0.3-6.fc42.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/tmpjszg_wts')] checks: 32, packages: 2 valijson.src: E: spelling-error ('validator', '%description -l en_US validator -> lavatorial') valijson.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: thirdparty_cleanup.patch valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ======================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s ====================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite/archive/23.2.0/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite-23.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8484173f82a2d992ca4fd36a45ad6174badf857053cdc991d7639406f1ac9957 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8484173f82a2d992ca4fd36a45ad6174badf857053cdc991d7639406f1ac9957 https://github.com/tristanpenman/valijson/archive/v1.0.3/valijson-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f Requires -------- valijson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel cmake(gtest) cmake(jsoncpp) cmake(nlohmann_json) cmake(pocojson) cmake(qt5core) cmake(rapidjson) cmake(yaml-cpp) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) picojson-devel Provides -------- valijson-devel: cmake(valijson) valijson-devel valijson-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/srpm/valijson.spec 2024-10-01 14:59:53.539965330 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/srpm-unpacked/valijson.spec 2024-09-30 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 6; + 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 + # header-only library %global debug_package %{nil} @@ -114,2 +124,23 @@ %{_includedir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name} + +%changelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-6 +- Exclude i686 + +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-5 +- Fix building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-4 +- Remove json11 + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-3 +- Prepare for building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-2 +- Add dependencies for devel package + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315886 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, R, fonts, Python, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2315886 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202315886%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
