https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This looks good overall, and it seems to comply with all the MUST guidelines, but there are a few SHOULD-type issues I’d like to bring up before approving it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - While install.patch looks reasonable, the spec file lacks an upstream status link for it. Please link https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/issues/2 and/or https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/pull/3 in a spec-file comment. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment (Optionally, you could base the patch source on the PR URL, something like "Patch: https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/pull/3.patch";.) - It looks like all of the tests require network access. Please add a comment in %check, or where %check would be, explaining this. Doing so will keep future readers from wondering, and perhaps spending time investigating, whether you simply forgot about the tests. - Man pages are always desired for command-line tools, although they are not strictly required. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages In this case, you can use help2man to generate a man page that, while not quite as nice as if it were hand-written, is perfectly adequate. Add: BuildRequires: help2man Then, at the end of %build: help2man \ --no-info \ --version-string='%{version}' \ --name='%{summary}' \ --output=%{_vpath_builddir}/digdoc.1 \ %{_vpath_builddir}/digdoc At the end of %install: install -p -D -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' %{_vpath_builddir}/digdoc.1 In %files: %{_mandir}/man1/digdoc.1* ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2352694-digdoc/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 1698 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. I do not know how to test this. [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=130344999 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. It turns out that all tests require network access, but you should add a spec-file comment explaining this. (I tried running the tests via test.sh in a chroot with network access enabled, but they all timed out. This probably just means I don’t have the correct environment, rather than indicating an issue with digdoc.) [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 expansion of rpmautospec macros [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: digdoc-0.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm digdoc-0.0.1-1.fc43.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/tmp9msjtp0x')] checks: 32, packages: 2 digdoc.src: E: spelling-error ('aiodns', '%description -l en_US aiodns -> ordains') digdoc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('aiodns', '%description -l en_US aiodns -> ordains') digdoc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary digdoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: digdoc-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.fc43.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/tmpev_nnvpw')] 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: 2.7.0 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: 2 digdoc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('aiodns', '%description -l en_US aiodns -> ordains') digdoc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary digdoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/archive/v0.0.1/digdoc-0.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58a94ebd8bbd8876598d2895a8f60546e94da34f3bbbbf3342e92a216a33ee03 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58a94ebd8bbd8876598d2895a8f60546e94da34f3bbbbf3342e92a216a33ee03 Requires -------- digdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcoap-3-openssl.so.3()(64bit) libcoap-3-openssl.so.3(VER_3)(64bit) libldns.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- digdoc: digdoc digdoc(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2352694-digdoc/srpm/digdoc.spec 2025-03-16 07:27:48.836724595 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2352694-digdoc/srpm-unpacked/digdoc.spec 2025-03-15 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + 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 + Name: digdoc Version: 0.0.1 @@ -43,3 +53,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun Mar 16 2025 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2352694 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R 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=2352694 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202352694%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
