https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989291
Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(pemensik(a)redhat.c
| |om)
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
Thanks! This is closer. I do think there are a few things that should be
re-examined, below.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
(OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec)
- The guidelines say:
Every package that uses Python (at runtime and/or build time) and/or
installs Python modules MUST explicitly include BuildRequires:
python3-devel in its .spec file, even if Python is not actually invoked
during build time.
[…]
The *-devel package brings in relevant RPM macros. It may also enable
automated or manual checks: for example, Python maintainers use this
requirement to list packages that use Python in some way and might be
affected by planned changes.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_buildr...
Therefore, you must replace
BuildRequires: python3 python-srpm-macros
with
BuildRequires: python3-devel
- The %{__cmake_builddir} macro is private and at risk of being removed. In an
out-of-source build, it is the same as %{_vpath_builddir}, and you are
supposed to use that instead.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_availab...
I am still not sure if you are trying to target EPEL with this spec file, but
I have confirmed this works on EPEL8 (with “%undefine
__cmake_in_source_build”), and I know you’re not targeting EPEL7 because it
would require several other spec file changes.
- Rpmlint reports:
docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12
2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> 0.6.3-3
docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12
2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> 0.6.3-3
I am not aware of a guideline in Fedora on whether localized dates are
acceptable in changelog dates. The guidelines request American English
spelling in summary and description fields, and the changelogs are also
visible to end users (“rpm -q --changelog …”), so I’m inclined to think that
POSIX-locale (LC_TIME=C) date format would be better here.
Furthermore, “rpmbuild” considers this date format an error, so I can’t even
do “rpmbuild -bs” on a spec file with dates expanded this way.
The thing is that you’re using %autochangelog, so the date format will be
controlled by the locale on the koji builders once the package is imported,
so I’m not sure if there’s anything you need to change here. You might need
to re-build the source RPM with LC_TIME=C exported if you’re going to use
“fedpkg import”.
I wonder if some component (maybe rpmautospec? maybe some other things too?)
should have an issue filed asking it not to respect system locale when
formatting changelog dates.
- While it is not harmful, you can remove
%global forgeurl0
https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp
since you are not using %forgemeta/%forgesource, and you do not use
%forgeurl0 explicitly anywhere in the spec file.
- The description still contains lines longer than 80 characters. Please wrap
to 80
characters or narrower.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_d...
See rpmlint output:
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain
full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to
maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Contains developer
headers and a library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code
Notes (no change required):
===========================
- This is not required in any current Fedora release:
%undefine __cmake_in_source_build
since out-of-source builds are the default. I suggest removing it *unless*
you plan to support EPEL8 from the same spec file.
Relevant documentation:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_availab...
- I am not sure what either these messages are about. I don’t see any problems,
so perhaps they are spurious:
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on
docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink
/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2
- This message seems to be complaining that the library major version is not in
the package name, which is not something the Fedora guidelines ask for. I
don’t think anything needs to be changed here.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License
1.0", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-
cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
(%autochangelog generates localized dates; see Issues)
[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.
(except localized changelog dates; see Issues)
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as noted)
[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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in docopt-
cpp-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
(based on tests passing)
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp/archive/v0.6.3/docopt-cpp-0.6.3.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632
Requires
--------
docopt-cpp (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)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
docopt-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
cmake-filesystem
cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
docopt-cpp(x86-64)
libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)
docopt-cpp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
docopt-cpp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
docopt-cpp:
docopt-cpp
docopt-cpp(x86-64)
libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)
docopt-cpp-devel:
cmake(docopt)
docopt-cpp-devel
docopt-cpp-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(docopt)
docopt-cpp-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
docopt-cpp-debuginfo
docopt-cpp-debuginfo(x86-64)
libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
docopt-cpp-debugsource:
docopt-cpp-debugsource
docopt-cpp-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm/docopt-cpp.spec
2021-11-12 10:25:36.796933902 -0500
+++
/home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm-unpacked/docopt-cpp.spec
2021-11-12 08:40:02.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+ release_number = 3;
+ base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+ print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
%global forgeurl0
https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp
@@ -82,3 +91,10 @@
%changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> 0.6.3-3
+- Add check section with tests running
+
+* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> 0.6.3-2
+- Update descriptions according to review
+
+* St srp 04 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> 0.6.3-1
+- Initial commit with %autorelease
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1989291
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Java, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, R, fonts,
SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 6
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug
docopt-cpp.src: W: strange-permission docopt-cpp.spec 600
docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12
2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> 0.6.3-3
docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12
2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> 0.6.3-3
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on
docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
docopt-cpp.spec:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
docopt-cpp.spec:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2
libdocopt.so.0.6.2
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain full
feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain
full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Contains developer
headers and a library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/58/5e2a6642ef2d009f399be7c8ca0dcfab9530ff
../../../.build-id/58/5e2a6642ef2d009f399be7c8ca0dcfab9530ff
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 9 warnings, 13 badness; has
taken 0.5 s
--
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=1989291