Bug 1218362

Created attachment 1021844 [details]
.src.rpm file

Niels, this could be uploaded to copr ... if you don't, I will as soon as I have a place on Fedorapeople for putting the file.

Created attachment 1021845 [details]
The spec file from inside the .src.rpm file

Created attachment 1021847 [details]
fedora-review report

I've added '+' signs where I think the package is fine.

The error that rpmlint complains about (the FSF address) has been fixed.

Created attachment 1021896 [details]
Updated .src.rpm

Upstream:
Include the COPYING-GPLv2 and COPYING-LGPLv2.1 files in the release tarball.

Packages:
Include the COPYING files in the packages.
Split up the License field for the sub-packages.

Created attachment 1021897 [details]
Updated spec file from attachment  1021896 [details]

Please fix all the entries marked with [!].


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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[!]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
       Koji build failed: missing dep on automake
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: 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.
       A patch "upstream.diff" to get a COPYING file is not allowed.
       If the version of the upstream tarball you're grabbing doesn't
       include a COPYING file, you just can't ship one, until the next
       version when it does.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)
     (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
     later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license.
       Please correct the FSF address in the upstream code.
       Also, as per the licensing table (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing),
       the licenses tags for the spec are: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
       License file in librichacl-devel is useless.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/sys
       Requires on glibc-headers required for /usr/include/sys
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
       automake dep missing
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
       Add newlines between changelog entries
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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).
       Both $-style and %-style macros used. (e.g. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{_libdir}).
       Please use %{buildroot} and %{_builddir}
[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.
       Missing require for glibc-headers for includedir/sys
       base package misses Requires on librichacl
       librichacl-devel requirement on librichacl is not architecture-specific (%{_isa})
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
       I have no idea what "%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}" does.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
       Dep for glibc-headers missing for /usr/include/sys
       Dep for pkgconfig missing for /usr/lib(64)/pkgconfig
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
       $RPM_BUILD_ROOT consistently used. But also %-style macros used.
[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]: 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 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.

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

Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
       Package does NOT build in mock.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
       Instead, license is put as patch. This is NOT allowed.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in librichacl
     , librichacl-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
       DOES include license text seperate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
       %check skipped on current systems because of lacking kernel support
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[!]: SourceX is a working URL.
       Please use the github tarball urls: https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl/archive/v1.4.tar.gz
[-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: richacl-1.4-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          librichacl-1.4-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          librichacl-devel-1.4-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          richacl-1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
richacl.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C richacl
richacl.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1, GPL2
richacl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
richacl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary getrichacl
richacl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary setrichacl
librichacl.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1, GPL2
librichacl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
librichacl-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1, GPL2
librichacl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
librichacl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
librichacl-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/sys/richacl.h
richacl.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C richacl
richacl.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1, GPL2
richacl.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
richacl.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
richacl.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
richacl.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
richacl.src:46: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
richacl.src:69: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir}
richacl.src:69: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
richacl.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %license
richacl.src: W: invalid-url Source0: richacl-1.4.tar.xz
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 21 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
richacl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    librichacl.so.1()(64bit)
    librichacl.so.1(RICHACL_1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

librichacl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libattr-devel
    librichacl

librichacl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
richacl:
    richacl
    richacl(x86-64)

librichacl-devel:
    librichacl-devel
    librichacl-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(librichacl)

librichacl:
    librichacl
    librichacl(x86-64)
    librichacl.so.1()(64bit)
    librichacl.so.1(RICHACL_1.0)(64bit)
    librichacl.so.1(RICHACL_1.1)(64bit)



Source checksums
----------------
Using local file /home/agruenba/rpm/richacl/richacl-1.4.tar.xz as upstream
file:///home/agruenba/rpm/richacl/richacl-1.4.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 251df4695bf9de68ca588c071e52d5140dbbf398ea64f5d35b8275d8b7568251
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 251df4695bf9de68ca588c071e52d5140dbbf398ea64f5d35b8275d8b7568251


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --verbose --no-build -p --rpm-spec -n richacl-1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

> [!]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
>      supported primary architecture.
>        Koji build failed: missing dep on automake

The package did actually depend on automake but shouldn't have.

> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/sys
>        Requires on glibc-headers required for /usr/include/sys

The librichacl-devel package does not create /usr/include/sys, it only puts
files there.  But see below ...

> [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
>        I have no idea what "%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}" does.

It's from this from this commit:

  http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/acl.git/commit/?id=231dae96d1ec92a18d9a53e73e080c538d5739df

It defines "%license" to expand to "%doc" if %_licensedir is not defined.
Seemingly that was needed in 2014; why would that have changed?

> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Let's see if any of the nonsense rpmlint complains about really needs
to be addressed with the updated spec file.

> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>        Dep for glibc-headers missing for /usr/include/sys
>        Dep for pkgconfig missing for /usr/lib(64)/pkgconfig

Okay, but this rule seems totally arbitrary: there are numerous packages
where this is not the case, just check some of those:

  rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/* | sort -u
  rpm -qf /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/* | sort -u

> [!]: SourceX is a working URL.
>        Please use the github tarball urls:
>        https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl/archive/v1.4.tar.gz

This is actually bad advice: those tarballs that github creates dynamically are
git snapshots for certain tags.  They do not include generated files like
configure, etc. and they don't work in the context of SourceX.

We could make them work by adding autoconf + automake to the dependencies and by
running autoreconf, but that is not recommended.

Updated version:

https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl-1.5-1.fc21.src.rpm
https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl.spec

Updated version:

https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl-1.5-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl.spec

(In reply to Andreas Gruenbacher from comment #7)
> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> >      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/sys
> >        Requires on glibc-headers required for /usr/include/sys
> 
> The librichacl-devel package does not create /usr/include/sys, it only puts
> files there.  But see below ...

Fair enough, this was only meant under the "Requires packages for directories it uses".

> 
> > [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> >        I have no idea what "%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}" does.
> 
> It's from this from this commit:
> 
>  
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/acl.git/commit/
> ?id=231dae96d1ec92a18d9a53e73e080c538d5739df
> 
> It defines "%license" to expand to "%doc" if %_licensedir is not defined.
> Seemingly that was needed in 2014; why would that have changed?

Okay, I have found the origin of this line, but it's only used for EPEL 5/6 compatibility.
If you're not going to put this in EPEL 5 or 6, please remove it.

> 
> > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> >      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> 
> Let's see if any of the nonsense rpmlint complains about really needs
> to be addressed with the updated spec file.
> 
> > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> >        Dep for glibc-headers missing for /usr/include/sys
> >        Dep for pkgconfig missing for /usr/lib(64)/pkgconfig
> 
> Okay, but this rule seems totally arbitrary: there are numerous packages
> where this is not the case, just check some of those:
> 
>   rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/* | sort -u
>   rpm -qf /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/* | sort -u

I don't know how you get this to return nothing, on F21:

[puiterwijk@bofh ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/* | sort -u | head
GeoIP-devel-1.6.5-1.fc21.x86_64
R-core-devel-3.1.3-1.fc21.x86_64
SDL-devel-1.2.15-17.fc21.x86_64
SDL2-devel-2.0.3-4.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_image-devel-2.0.0-7.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_mixer-devel-2.0.0-7.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_net-devel-2.0.0-2.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_ttf-devel-2.0.12-4.fc21.x86_64
Xaw3d-devel-1.6.2-7.fc21.x86_64
accountsservice-devel-0.6.39-2.fc21.x86_64

[puiterwijk@bofh ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/* | sort -u | head
alsa-lib-devel-1.0.28-2.fc21.x86_64
glibc-headers-2.20-8.fc21.x86_64
libacl-devel-2.2.52-7.fc21.x86_64
libcap-devel-2.24-7.fc21.x86_64
systemtap-sdt-devel-2.7-1.fc21.x86_64


Also: the fact "Nobody does it, thus I don't have to do it" is just... wrong.


> 
> > [!]: SourceX is a working URL.
> >        Please use the github tarball urls:
> >        https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl/archive/v1.4.tar.gz
> 
> This is actually bad advice: those tarballs that github creates dynamically
> are
> git snapshots for certain tags.  They do not include generated files like
> configure, etc. and they don't work in the context of SourceX.
> 
> We could make them work by adding autoconf + automake to the dependencies
> and by
> running autoreconf, but that is not recommended.

You can also upload your own tarballs to github for a release you created (https://help.github.com/articles/creating-releases/).
You should REALLY consider making sane releases, since that also makes it a lot easier for people to check your package and for other people (non-Fedora users) to pick it up.

New version:
https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl-1.5-4.fc21.src.rpm
https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl.spec

Package looks good to me.


APPROVED




Also, since you needed a sponsor, I have sponsored you into the packager group.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: richacl
Short Description: Rich Access Control List utilities
Upstream URL: https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
Owners: agruenba devos
Branches: f22

WARNING: Requested package name richacl doesn't match bug summary richacls

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: richacl
Short Description: Rich Access Control List utilities
Upstream URL: https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
Owners: agruenba devos
Branches: f22

Git done (by process-git-requests).

richacl-1.5-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/richacl-1.5-2.fc22

richacl-1.5-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.