https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596278
--- Comment #2 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
- Not needed:
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
Fixed.
%defattr(-,root,root)
Fixed.
- Not good:
Version: %{date}git%{short_gittag}
Release: 1%{?dist}
If you do a dev snapshot, the date and gittag should be in Release:
Version: 0
Release: 0.1.%{date}git%{short_gittag}%{?dist}
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots
- Thus use:
Source0:
https://github.com/sgan81/%{name}/archive/%{short_gittag}/%{name}-
%{short_gittag}.tar.gz
Done.
- The changelog entry should contain the version-release info:
* Thu Jun 28 2018 Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> -
0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741
My vim macros can't generate it. This is tagged in the repo, so why is this
important?
- Use:
%global short_gittag %(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7})
Done. Why is this not mentioned in the packaging guidelines?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots
- The LICENSE must be included with %license, not %doc:
%files
%{_bindir}/apfs-*
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE
Done.
- You're using a mix of tabs and space in the SPEC, use one or
the other'
not both.
Used spaces now.
- lzfse is licensed under BSD. Add it to the license field and add
a
comment explaining the license breakdown. Also install the lzfse LICENSE
file as LICENSE-lzfse
The lzfse sources already include this, and the combined work is GPLv2+. I
don't think we need this.
- Use %global, not %define
Done.
- Split the description lines to stay below 80 characters per line.
I've reworked this as well.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated".
36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/apfs-fuse/review-apfs-fuse/licensecheck.txt
I don't think it's necessary, as the combined work's license is already
mentioned correctly.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
Fixed.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define date 20180628, %define
gittag be557410232d84929614410d9048468bc6e5f671, %define short_gittag
%(c=%{gittag}; echo ${c:0:7})
Fixed.
[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.
===== 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: apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm
apfs-fuse-debuginfo-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm
apfs-fuse-debugsource-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.x86_64.rpm
apfs-fuse-0-0.1.20180628gitbe55741.fc29.src.rpm
apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a read-only
FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't
apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk
format of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental.
apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read
all files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash.
apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But
since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe.
apfs-fuse.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all
compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so
far).
Fixed.
apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump
apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-dump-quick
apfs-fuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apfs-fuse
Won't be fixing this.
apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C This project is a
read-only
FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't
apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C yet document the disk format
of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental.
apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C It may not be able to read all
files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash.
apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Use at your own risk. But
since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe.
apfs-fuse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Be aware that not all
compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so
far).
Fixed.
apfs-fuse.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1,
tab: line
5)
Fixed.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings.
New spec and package at:
https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse.spec
https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse-0-1.20180628gitbe557...
--
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