https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301143
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Murdaca <amurdaca(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nalin Dahyabhai from comment #15)
runcom is not currently in the packagers group; I can sponsor.
I've got questions about the license tag when we're bundling, and could
probably use some clarification about whether or not, and if so, how many,
of the vendored modules need to be debundled for Fedora. Otherwise it looks
pretty straightforward from here.
fedora-review output:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
Since you're keeping a .spec file in the repository, I expect you'll be
keeping it more or less in sync with the one being used for Fedora, so no
worries there.
I've created
https://github.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs where I do have .spec(s) and
SRPM(s)
I'm planning to remove the .spec from the source repo and maintain the .spec at
https://github.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs/tree/master/skopeo/fedora/skopeo
The source tarball in the SRPM contained the .git directory and copies of
generated files, including the binary, which is rather odd. How was it
generated? Will future versions of the package do this as well?
Probably a mistake - I've regenerated the SRPM and it's available at
https://github.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs/raw/master/skopeo/fedora/skopeo/sko...
It does not contain .git nor binaries anymore.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
Stylistically, it's better to choose either %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT and be consistent about it. You're not doing anything that
makes either of them not an option, so use whichever you prefer.
Fixed in
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs/master/skopeo/fedora...
- 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.
Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
The main package tags the LICENSE file as %doc rather than %license, which
is trivially fixable.
Fixed in
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs/master/skopeo/fedora...
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
I suspect that linking your MIT-licensed main logic with vendored
sources from other repositories is going to produce
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "*No
copyright* Apache
(v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause)". 371
files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /misc/skopeo
/review-skopeo/licensecheck.txt
If it's not mixed source, then "License: MIT" is correct.
This license stuff is tricky...I've re-licensed my tool with ASL 2.0 since
all my vendors are ASL 2.0 afaict.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Uses %gobuild to invoke the go compiler.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Package bundles several libraries. Does it need to remove them at the
end of the %setup section when %{with_bundled} is 0 in order to ensure that
the compiler picks up the debundled copies? Doesn't Fedora require
debundling?
I've added the removal of vendor/ when %{with_bundled} is 0
Right now, unluckily, this tool won't build from debundled vendor's copies, and
also not all vendors are already in Fedora - but I'm working on packaging them
with Lokesh and Jan for a future version
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
The package's makefile hardcodes the install locations, and we don't
force them to match %{_bindir} and %{_mandir}.
Fixed
[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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
The package could use a longer %description; I think something along
the lines of the paragraph that starts around line 6 of README.md would work.
Fixed in
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs/master/skopeo/fedora...
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
Why is %{with_debug} disabled? Rebuilding it with debuginfo enabled
produces files with names that seem to be of some use to my debugger.
Enabled %{with_debug} - was an old .spec
[-]: 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 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Aside from questions I have about licensing and bundling, this looks
fine.
[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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
The makefile doesn't bother for generated files, but then they're
generated at build-time.
should I call `make clean` to remove generated files in a %clean section?
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[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: skopeo-0.1.3-0.1.gitfdb5cac.fc24.x86_64.rpm
skopeo-0.1.3-0.1.gitfdb5cac.fc24.src.rpm
skopeo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/skopeo
skopeo.src: W: file-size-mismatch skopeo-fdb5cac.tar.gz = 5646750,
https://github.com/runcom/skopeo/archive/
fdb5cac7f5af50ae5b1e3424965c31600d86232c/skopeo-fdb5cac.tar.gz = 428362
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
skopeo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/skopeo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
skopeo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
skopeo:
skopeo
skopeo(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/runcom/skopeo/archive/
fdb5cac7f5af50ae5b1e3424965c31600d86232c/skopeo-fdb5cac.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
1d2050f0edfec3abb3b7cff2d8d71def51b7057875ee6a82e485d7e1eb9fd196
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bae74476f07f2955ed360c78ce7f724896a4479e4b6628a37ce34a08e605cb63
diff -r also reports differences
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n skopeo
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
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