Bug 1403748

Initial output of licensecheck:

$ licensecheck -r .
./spec/spec_helper_acceptance.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./spec/fixtures/file2: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./spec/fixtures/file1: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./spec/acceptance/001_basic_spec.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./lib/puppet/type/file_fragment.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./lib/puppet/type/file_concat.rb: *No copyright* GENERATED FILE
./Rakefile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./Modulefile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./LICENSE: Apache (v2.0)
./Gemfile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./CHANGELOG.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN

The module is licensed using the ASL 2.0 license

Files for fedora-review:

Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/puppet-lib-file_concat-distgit/rpm-master/puppet-lib-file_concat.spec
SRPM: http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/74/4074/1/check/DLRN-rpmbuild/Zfe0d21c0540c419cb932f5627615d072/artifacts/centos/repos/81/31/813132b5d776204e1da169a93e4bc6a1e253f75c_dev/puppet-lib-file_concat-1.0.1-0.20161213135114.813132b.el7.centos.src.rpm

Hi @Javier, now that this is available, does this mean that the tests for https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/4066/ will pass now?

No, we're still missing step 4 from https://www.rdoproject.org/documentation/rdo-packaging/#how-to-add-a-new-package-to-rdo-trunk . 

Also, I'd like to fix one detail in the spec file (see https://review.rdoproject.org/r/4084) so that fedora-review is happy.

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.
  Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems
  running diff. Please verify manually.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- 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 not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1403748-puppet-lib-
     file_concat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/openstack-puppet/modules,
     /usr/share/openstack-puppet
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openstack-
     puppet/modules, /usr/share/openstack-puppet
[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.
[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 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 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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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]: 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:
[-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: puppet-lib-file_concat-1.0.1-0.20161213135114.813132b.el7.centos.noarch.rpm
          puppet-lib-file_concat-1.0.1-0.20161213135114.813132b.el7.centos.src.rpm
puppet-lib-file_concat.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
puppet-lib-file_concat.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
puppet-lib-file_concat.noarch: W: no-documentation
puppet-lib-file_concat.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
puppet-lib-file_concat.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
puppet-lib-file_concat.src: W: invalid-url Source0: 1.0.1-0.20161213135114.813132b.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
puppet-lib-file_concat.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
puppet-lib-file_concat.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
puppet-lib-file_concat.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /tmp/1403748-puppet-lib-file_concat/srpm/puppet-lib-file_concat.spec	2016-12-14 18:19:03.524166740 +0100
+++ /tmp/1403748-puppet-lib-file_concat/srpm-unpacked/puppet-lib-file_concat.spec	2016-12-13 14:51:14.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
+%global dlrn 1
+%define upstream_version 1.0.1
 %{!?upstream_version: %global upstream_version %{version}%{?milestone}}
 
 Name:                   puppet-lib-file_concat
-Version:                1.0.1
-Release:                1%{?dist}
+Version: 1.0.1
+Release: 0.20161213135114.813132b%{?dist}
 Summary:                Library for concatenating multiple files into 1
 License:                Apache-2.0
@@ -9,5 +11,5 @@
 URL:                    https://github.com/electrical/puppet-lib-file_concat
 
-Source0:                https://github.com/electrical/puppet-lib-file_concat/archive/%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0: 1.0.1-0.20161213135114.813132b.tar.gz
 
 BuildArch:              noarch
@@ -33,4 +35,5 @@
 
 %install
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
 install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/openstack-puppet/modules/file_concat/
 cp -rp * %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/openstack-puppet/modules/file_concat/
@@ -43,4 +46,2 @@
 
 %changelog
-* Tue Dec 13 2016 Alejandro Andreu <alejandroandreu> 1.0.1-1
-- Initial specfile


Requires
--------
puppet-lib-file_concat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    puppet



Provides
--------
puppet-lib-file_concat:
    puppet-lib-file_concat



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/electrical/puppet-lib-file_concat/archive/1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ERROR
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5d82828c10ed47cbeb41285ccc5916d33e9dc5230be7978b6c21007a6b54a8b2


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1403748 -m dlrn
Buildroot used: dlrn-centos7-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

* The differences between the spec from the review and srpm are due to the SRPM being generated by DLRN, so they are expected.

* The LICENSE file issue is caused by the spec file being automatically generated, it is accepted as is.

The package is APPROVED.

This landed so closing.