https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2338778 --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Since one file is under an MIT license, the text of that license is also required, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text. I opened an upstream PR to amend the upstream LICENSE file. Since the copyright notices are included in the SPDX fields in the source file header, and the license text is taken from the URL cited in the source file, it should be safe enough to patch this in downstream while awaiting upstream review. - The format of VCS: https://github.com/blogc/blogc is not consistent with the documentation at https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/tags.html which says it should be (Public) upstream source code VCS location. Format <vcs>:<address> with <vcs> being the VCS command used (e.g. git, svn, hg, …) and <address> being the location of the repository as used by the VCS tool to clone/checkout the repository (e.g. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm.git). Therefore, please change this to VCS: git:https://github.com/blogc/blogc.git - The getsource.sh script does not work. Change tar -cvf blogc to tar -cvf blogc.tar blogc - I was going to question the use of a "getsource.sh" script, as you normally don’t need one to package a git snapshot from GitHub. You would be able to change Source0: blogc.tar.gz # Need Git files for build version from a commit Source1: getsource.sh to Source: https://github.com/blogc/blogc/archive/%{commit}/blogc-%{commit}.tar.gz and %autosetup -n blogc -p 1 to %autosetup -n blogc-%{commit} -p 1 or maybe something like %autosetup -n blogc-%{commit} -p 1 -S git git tag v%{version} if this weren’t a snapshot… but then I saw how the version number actually includes the number of git commits since the last release tag in the version number ("29"): 0.20.1.29-b1ae This is hard to figure out by hand and hard-code, and it absolutely requires the real upstream .git directory to do it automatically. Unfortunately, this means the source archive technically includes not just everything in a git checkout, but everything that has *ever* been committed to the upstream git repository, which is probably fine but really expands the scope of review. I think what you’re doing is probably the best you can do while still generating the right version number, but please consider changing git clone https://github.com/blogc/blogc in getsource.sh to git clone https://github.com/blogc/blogc --shallow-since=2021-01-01 which still goes back far enough to catch the last release tag on 2021-01-02, without including all of the project’s ancient history. - Please consider encouraging upstream to make a new release. - While the changelog is correctly formatted, I don’t think it makes sense to include changelog entries from the upstream spec file, before the package was included in Fedora. - As demonstrated in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package the dependencies among subpackages of the same RPM should be arch-specific. Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: %{name}-make = %{version}-%{release} Requires: %{name}-runserver = %{version}-%{release} (in various places) should become, respectively: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: %{name}-make%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: %{name}-runserver%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - While this isn’t strictly required, it can be nicer to write # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17 Patch: getaddrinfo.patch as # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17 Patch: https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17.patch or, if you want to preserve the patch name, # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17 Patch: https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17.patch#/getaddrinfo.patch - Since this will be a new leaf package, consider adding: # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} This package builds fine on i686, but there is no value in building it there. - I was able to determine experimentally that BuildRequires: git can and should be replaced with BuildRequires: git-core Consider trying to determine if Requires: git can be replaced with Requires: git-core too, based on the particular git commands that are actually used. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ChangeToGitCore ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2338778-blogc/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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. src/common/utf8.c is based on other work, but is not a bundled library [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. Upstream says: Running the `blogc-git-receiver` tool requires: - git, make and tar I’m taking that for granted. As noted in Issues, consider trying to evaluate whether full git is needed, or just git-core. [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 (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). [!]: 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. The “main” license text is present, but the MIT text for src/common/utf8.c is not. See Issues. [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 1917 bytes in 1 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. The “main” license text is present, but the MIT text for src/common/utf8.c is not. See Issues. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in blogc- git-receiver , blogc-make , blogc-runserver These dependencies need to be arch-specific; see Issues. [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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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=128250709 [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm blogc-git-receiver-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm blogc-make-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm blogc-runserver-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp3xaenllt')] checks: 32, packages: 5 blogc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: blogc.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: blogc-make-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm blogc-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm blogc-git-receiver-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm blogc-runserver-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpyv5ommhg')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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: 8 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 47 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s Requires -------- blogc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) blogc-git-receiver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): blogc-make git libc.so.6()(64bit) make rtld(GNU_HASH) tar blogc-make (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): blogc blogc-runserver libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) blogc-runserver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- blogc: blogc blogc(x86-64) blogc-git-receiver: blogc-git-receiver blogc-git-receiver(x86-64) blogc-make: blogc-make blogc-make(x86-64) blogc-runserver: blogc-runserver blogc-runserver(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2338778 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Haskell, R, fonts, PHP, Perl, Java, SugarActivity 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=2338778 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202338778%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
