https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Group: is not used in Fedora

- Should just be 1:

Release: rc1%{?dist}

It's not a rc.

- Buildroot is not used anymore

BuildRoot: %(mktemp -udp %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}%)

- Not needed:

ExclusiveOS: Linux

- The Source: must be a URL

Source: https://github.com/gluster/nbd-runner/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%...

- Please split you BuildRequires And Requires: one per line

- Add gcc as a BuildRequires

- No: %global debug_package %{nil}

If your package is not generating debug symbols, you need to fimd why and fix it.

- Use %make_build first:

%build ./autogen.sh %configure %{?_without_tirpc} %{?_without_gluster} %make_build

- %{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install → %make_install

- license files must be included with %license, not %doc:

%license COPYING-GPLV2 COPYING-LGPLV3

- You must add the Release info in your %changelog entry:

* Wed Apr 24 2019 Xiubo Li xiubli@redhat.com - 0.3-1

- Not needed this is the default already:

%global _hardened_build 1

You'll also need to find a sponsor. Read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=Pa... and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

Also you need to sign the CLA on your FAS page.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

--- Comment #3 from Xiubo Li xiubli@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)

@Robert-André Mauchin

Thanks very much for your detail info about the spec file.

Update it and I am still seeking for a sponsor.

Thanks. BRs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- You archive of version 0.3 in the SRPM does not correspond to the version 0.3 as downloaded on Github. If you want to package a GIT snapshot, don't use version 0.3

%global commit e174ebaa282a681b932b6b8790851b78da0168d7 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global snapshotdate 20190605

[…]

Version: 0.3 Release: 1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} URL: https://github.com/gluster/nbd-runner.git

Source0: https://github.com/gluster/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bcommit%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7...

[…]

%autosetup -p 1 -n %{name}-%{commit}

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - License is LGPLv3+ or GPLv2 See https://github.com/gluster/nbd-runner#license

License: LGPLv3+ or GPLv2

Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.

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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Expat License Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)", "ISC License". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nbd-runner/review-nbd- runner/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [x]: 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 [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: nbd-runner-0.4-0.fc31.x86_64.rpm nbd-runner-debuginfo-0.4-0.fc31.x86_64.rpm nbd-runner-debugsource-0.4-0.fc31.x86_64.rpm nbd-runner-0.4-0.fc31.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

Michael S. misc@zarb.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org

--- Comment #9 from Michael S. misc@zarb.org --- I am going to sponsor Xiobu Li

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

--- Comment #11 from Xiubo Li xiubli@redhat.com --- @Michael, @Gwyn Thanks very much :-)

The builds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=29705

Thanks.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nbd-runner-0.4-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-46d28f682f

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-20aa23d56e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-20aa23d56e

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nbd-runner-0.4-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.