https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Whiteboard| |Trivial

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91061105

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org --- (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #2)

...

Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedoraproject.org/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.src.rpm

Both of these give me a 404. I assume you meant to use fedorapeople.org links, not fedoraproject.org? The files exist there.

Doh.

...

BuildRequires: gcc

You need to BuildRequire "make" as well. It hasn't been part of the default buildroot since F34. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot

Fixed

...

%build %set_build_flags

This is not needed. %set_build_flags is called automatically from F36 onwards. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck

It's needed for F35 and all EPEL. I'm happy to wrap it in an %if block if you think it necessary but it seems unnecessary to me.

---

Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cinfo.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.src.rpm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues ====== - There are several build warnings that indicate possible runtime issues. The -Wrestrict warnings indicate code that can produce garbled output. The -Wformat-overflow warnings indicate possible buffer overflows.

- The -Os flag to gcc should not be used, since Fedora has selected -O2.

- Version 0.4.8 has been released, and includes your PR.

===== 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]: 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. [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". 12 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %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]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

Upstream did not provide any tests. Perhaps %check could simply run the binary and verify that it produces valid output; i.e., it doesn't segfault, etc.?

[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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- cinfo.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only cinfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071 ../../../.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/cinfo-0.4.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'

cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only cinfo-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only cinfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only cinfo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071 ../../../.build-id/d3/f7d544db72d1d2e7673f5df06db55b9be88071 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mrdotx/cinfo/archive/v0.4.6/cinfo-0.4.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06517cc379ff7d864075a6d3d8e5619f17cb9fe47a7ac34fba11054e309213c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06517cc379ff7d864075a6d3d8e5619f17cb9fe47a7ac34fba11054e309213c0

Requires -------- cinfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

cinfo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

cinfo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- cinfo: cinfo cinfo(x86-64)

cinfo-debuginfo: cinfo-debuginfo cinfo-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id)

cinfo-debugsource: cinfo-debugsource cinfo-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120002 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ruby, Java, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) |

--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #5)

I don't think there's anything in packaging guidelines prohibiting overriding some of the default flags. In fact, guidelines say it's permissible.

You are correct. It isn't forbidden, although the guidelines do say that changing the -O option is "discouraged".

If you or upstream would like me to do so, I am happy to suggest patches for the warnings.

In the meantime, this package meets all of the packaging guidelines, so it is APPROVED.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cinfo

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-08-26 18:25:26

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0c4b69e57a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c60732ddf0 (cinfo-0.5.10-1.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.