Bug 1117492

There's a %{dist_version} macro which doesn't get expanded.

Spec URL: https://ausil.us/packages/fedora-repos.spec
SRPM URL: https://ausil.us/packages/fedora-repos-21-0.2.src.rpm

no longer use %{dist_version} macro

Package Review
==============

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



===== MUST items =====

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]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/pki/rpm-gpg(fedora-
     release), /etc/yum.repos.d(yum, fedora-release)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.  ( I don't think we need a license file for what is essentially config data)
[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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[!]: SourceX is a working URL.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fedora-repos-21-0.2.noarch.rpm
          fedora-repos-rawhide-21-0.2.noarch.rpm
          fedora-repos-21-0.2.src.rpm
fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA
fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag
fedora-repos.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-secondary
fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-primary
fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repo -> rope, rep, reps
fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps
fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedora-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA
fedora-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag
fedora-repos.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fedora-repos-21.tar.bz2
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint fedora-repos-rawhide fedora-repos
fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repo -> rope, rep, reps
fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps
fedora-repos-rawhide.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA
fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag
fedora-repos.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-secondary
fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-primary
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'


Notes:
1) The lint checks looks fine to me. 
2) Get rid of the %clean section and the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install
3) Where does the source tarball come from?  If these files are stored in a git repo, you should add a comment specifying how the tarball was created.
4) Regarding directory ownership and the requires, I need to fully understand the context here.  I _think_ this is stuff being split out of fedora-release to enable separate release packages for different fedora products, right?  And in F21, this package will be the sole owner of /etc/pki/rpm-gpg, which is fine.  I guess we have to make an exception for /etc/yum.repos.d, as that already had multiple owners, and we probably don't want this package to depend on yum or dnf.  It's weird for a directory to change packages without obsoletes or conflicts.  Maybe we wnat this to conflict with fedora-release < 21?

the source tarball comes from make archive of the git repo, its the same process as fedora-release. I think requiring system-release(%{version}) will be sufficient to make sure its only ever installed on a f21 system. we are not removing fedora-release just breaking it to make keeping the repos right all the time easier. we will remove the repo definitions from generic-release and fedora-release

I cloned the git.

reviewed the spec file, and rpmlint had no meaningful issues.

ran "make archive" & "make tag-archive"

ran through mock to build the srpm & rpm.

rpmlint had no issues with the package.

From what I can tell this looks good.
No obvious problems, and the RPM works.


ACK +1

Consider this my approval/blessing for what it's worth...

-Jon Disnard

Spec URL: https://ausil.us/packages/fedora-repos.spec
SRPM URL: https://ausil.us/packages/fedora-repos-21-0.3.src.rpm

- remove %%clean and rm in %%install
- Provides:       fedora-repos(%%{version})
- Requires:       system-release(%%{version})
- change url to git repo
- add note on how to make a tarball

Spec URL: https://ausil.us/packages/fedora-repos.spec
SRPM URL: https://ausil.us/packages/fedora-repos-21-0.4.src.rpm

- Require fedora-repos-rawhide from main package
- have fedora-repos-rawhide obsolete fedora-release-rawhide

EXACT STEPS:


$ cd /tmp
$ git clone https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fedora-repos.git
~~~


$ cd ./fedora-repos
$ make create-archive
$ make tag-archive

$ rpmlint fedora-repos.spec
fedora-repos.spec:10: W: unversioned-explicit-provides fedora-repos(%{version})
fedora-repos.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fedora-repos-21.tar.bz2
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
~~~



$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --buildsrpm --spec fedora-repos.spec --sources ${PWD}
$ cp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/fedora-repos-21-0.4.src.rpm /tmp

$ rpmlint /tmp/fedora-repos-21-0.4.src.rpm
fedora-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA
fedora-repos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag
fedora-repos.src:10: W: unversioned-explicit-provides fedora-repos(%{version})
fedora-repos.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fedora-repos-21.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
~~~


$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild /tmp/fedora-repos-21-0.4.src.rpm
$ cp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/fedora-repos-rawhide-21-0.4.noarch.rpm /tmp
$ cp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch.rpm /tmp

$ rpmlint /tmp/fedora-repos-rawhide-21-0.4.noarch.rpm
(none): E: no installed packages by name /tmp/fedora-repos-rawhide-21-0.4.noarch.rpm
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
~~~

$ rpmlint /tmp/fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch.rpm 
fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA
fedora-repos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag
fedora-repos.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-secondary
fedora-repos.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-primary
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
~~~



$ cd /tmp
$ rpmdev-extract /tmp/fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch.rpm
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-21-fedora
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-aarch64
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-armhfp
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-i386
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-ppc64
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-ppc64le
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-primary
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-s390
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-s390x
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-secondary
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-21-x86_64
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/yum.repos.d
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing.repo
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates.repo
fedora-repos-21-0.4.noarch/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo

$ rpmdev-extract fedora-repos-rawhide-21-0.4.noarch.rpm
fedora-repos-rawhide-21-0.4.noarch/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-rawhide.repo
~~~




REMARKS:

1) The makefile for creating the source archive is cool. Thanks for adding a note about that in the spec file.

2) The removal of the rm (cleaning) looks better, thanks.

3) The URL is great, thanks for adding that.

4) The versioning appears to address the address concerns about yum.repos.d, thanks.

5) lint warnings are trivial, and ignored. no worries.


I'm marking as approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fedora-repos
Short Description: Fedora package repositories
Upstream URL: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-repos.git/
Owners: ausil kevin
Branches: f21
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).