Bug 1246891

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

NEED WORK:

1- Use compiler flags by default:

!: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags

If your package run as root, or can run as, also add %global _hardened_build 1

Also see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages

2- The missing manpage is a easy fix the package manedit (UNIX Manual Page Editor) to create a manpage and add it ass Source1, if you create a manpage please propose it to upstream.

3- Build failed in ppc64le
!: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

See: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/monitor/

If your package only build in x86 and x86_64 you must add a: 

ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64

If a error with copr (f22 build fine and I look your koji build also) you can omit this.

===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
OK: Package does not contain kernel modules.
OK: Package contains no static executables.
OK: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
OK: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
OK: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
OK: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
OK: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
OK: Changelog in prescribed format.
OK: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
NA: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
NA: Development files must be in a -devel package
OK: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
OK: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
OK: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: Package does not generate any conflict.
OK: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
OK: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
OK: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
OK: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
OK: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
OK: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
OK: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
OK: 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.
OK: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
OK: Package installs properly.
OK: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
OK: 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.
OK: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
OK: Package must own all directories that it creates.
OK: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
OK: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
OK: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
OK: Dist tag is present.
OK: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
OK: Permissions on files are set properly.
OK: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
OK: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
OK: Package does not use a name that already exists.
OK: Package is not relocatable.
OK: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
OK: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
OK: File names are valid UTF-8.
OK: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
NA: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
OK: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
OK: Package functions as described.
OK: Latest version is packaged.
OK: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
OK: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
NA: %check is present and all tests pass.
OK: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
OK: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
OK: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
OK: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK: Buildroot is not present
OK: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
OK: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
OK: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
OK: SourceX is a working URL.
OK: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
OK: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
OK: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
OK: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
OK: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xkb-switch-0-0.5.20150719git532d923.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          xkb-switch-0-0.5.20150719git532d923.fc21.src.rpm
xkb-switch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xkb-switch
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xkb-switch-debuginfo-0-0.5.20150719git532d923.fc21.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
xkb-switch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xkb-switch
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Requires
--------
xkb-switch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides
--------
xkb-switch:
    xkb-switch
    xkb-switch(x86-64)

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ierton/xkb-switch/archive/532d92321ca15945e58e23c158b5e091eb2fdf18/xkb-switch-532d92321ca15945e58e23c158b5e091eb2fdf18.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3fa3a6565ad9a2a5388cfc05e2b2ac39aadc272f567d30cd6af3e58b88a0836e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3fa3a6565ad9a2a5388cfc05e2b2ac39aadc272f567d30cd6af3e58b88a0836e

Thanks for the review!

(In reply to William Moreno from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> NEED WORK:
> 
> 1- Use compiler flags by default:
> 
> !: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> 

%cmake sets the compiler flags. See the build.log to confirm that the package is built with all required flags. checksec gives the following output:

Full RELRO      Canary found      NX enabled    PIE enabled     No RPATH   No RUNPATH

> 
> 2- The missing manpage is a easy fix the package manedit (UNIX Manual Page
> Editor) to create a manpage and add it ass Source1, if you create a manpage
> please propose it to upstream.

Thanks for the hint. I'll have a look.

> 
> 3- Build failed in ppc64le
> !: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.
> 
> See:
> http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/
> monitor/

Looking at the output, this is clearly a COPR error. From root.log:
DEBUG util.py:377:  Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'coprbecloudfedoraprojectorg_results_williamjmorenor_fedorareviewtest_fedorarawhideppc64le_devel_' from 'https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/fedora-rawhide-ppc64le/devel/': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried, disabling.

The build never started, build.log is empty.

Only the epel6 build failure is actually due to this package, because the Spec file uses %license, which is not defined in epel6. I will not submit the package to epel6.

I've tried a COPR build too, with similar results: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/thofmann/review-test/build/106723/

Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/xkb-switch.spec
SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc22.src.rpm

I've created a man page and sent the patch upstream. While creating the man page, I realized that upstream actually specifies a version 1.3.1, so I changed the version to 1.3.1, using the post-release version pattern according to the guidelines [1].

koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10573375


Other than the man page and the version nothing has changed.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages

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

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

C/C++:
OK: Package does not contain kernel modules.
OK: Package contains no static executables.
OK: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
OK: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
OK: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
OK: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
OK: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
OK: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
OK: Changelog in prescribed format.
OK: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
OK: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
OK: Development files must be in a -devel package
OK: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
OK: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
OK: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: Package does not generate any conflict.
OK: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
NA: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
OK: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
OK: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
NA: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
OK: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
OK: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
OK: 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.
OK: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
OK: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
OK: Package installs properly.
OK: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
OK: 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.
OK: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
OK: Package must own all directories that it creates.
OK: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
OK: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
OK: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
OK: Dist tag is present.
OK: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
OK: Permissions on files are set properly.
OK: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
OK: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
OK: Package does not use a name that already exists.
OK: Package is not relocatable.
OK: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
OK: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
OK: File names are valid UTF-8.
OK: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
NA: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
OK: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
OK: Package functions as described.
OK: Latest version is packaged.
OK: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
OK: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
OK: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
OK: %check is present and all tests pass.
OK: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
OK: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
OK: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
OK: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK: Buildroot is not present
OK: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
OK: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
OK: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
OK: SourceX is a working URL.
OK: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
OK: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
OK: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
OK: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
OK: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc21.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xkb-switch-debuginfo-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc21.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Requires
--------
xkb-switch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides
--------
xkb-switch:
    xkb-switch
    xkb-switch(x86-64)

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ierton/xkb-switch/archive/532d92321ca15945e58e23c158b5e091eb2fdf18/xkb-switch-532d92321ca15945e58e23c158b5e091eb2fdf18.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3fa3a6565ad9a2a5388cfc05e2b2ac39aadc272f567d30cd6af3e58b88a0836e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3fa3a6565ad9a2a5388cfc05e2b2ac39aadc272f567d30cd6af3e58b88a0836e

PACKAGE APROVED
===============

Thank you for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: xkb-switch
Short Description: Switch your X keyboard layouts from the command line
Upstream URL: https://github.com/ierton/xkb-switch
Owners: thofmann
Branches: f21 f22 f23
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc23

xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc22

xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc21

xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.

xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

xkb-switch-1.3.1-1.20150719git532d923.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.