Bug 1615381

minizip currently bundles bzip2, could you either make it link against the system bzip2 library or turn it off?

Also, the manually listed required packages are not necessary:

❯ rpm -qp --requires minizip-2.3.9-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
libbsd
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
zlib

Spec URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/minizip.spec

SRPM URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm

Now it builds against the system bzip2 if available. I removed the bundled bzip2 code in %prep section.

The patch from the previous version is now included in the new release. Linking against system bzip2 patch is now merged to master.

I also removed all explicit dependencies except for zlib.


Thank you for reviewing this package.

A few issues highlighted before that should be easy to fix and then I can approve this.

Also one suggestion (feel free to use or not as you like): you can use %autosetup that will also apply the patch for you automatically (you'll still need to do the `rm -rf lib/bzip2` cleanup)

see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25autosetup




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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
  %prep should have `rm -rf lib/bzip2` without %{buildroot}

- Package must own all directories that it creates.
  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake

  devel subpackage should require cmake

- Requires correct, justified where necessary.
  no need to manually require zlib:

  $ rpm -qp --requires minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | grep -e zlib -e libz   
  libz.so.1()(64bit)
  zlib

- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in minizip
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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:
[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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 124 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1615381-minizip/licensecheck.txt

     false positive due to lib/bzip2 not being erased correctly

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
     %prep does not delete this correctly
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in minizip-
     debuginfo , minizip-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
-------
Checking: minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          minizip-devel-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          minizip-debuginfo-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          minizip-debugsource-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
minizip.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib
minizip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) contrib -> cont rib, cont-rib, contribute
minizip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Minizip
minizip.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/minizip/README.md
minizip-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
minizip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) contrib -> cont rib, cont-rib, contribute
minizip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zlib -> lib, glib, z lib
minizip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Minizip
minizip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib
minizip.src:37: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf %{buildroot}/lib/bzip2
minizip.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/bzip2
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: minizip-debuginfo-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
minizip-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
minizip-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
minizip.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib
minizip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) contrib -> cont rib, cont-rib, contribute
minizip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Minizip
minizip.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
minizip.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/minizip/README.md
minizip-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
minizip-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.



Requires
--------
minizip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

minizip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

minizip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
    libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit)
    libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    zlib

minizip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libminizip.so.2.5()(64bit)
    minizip(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(zlib)
    zlib-devel



Provides
--------
minizip-debugsource:
    minizip-debugsource
    minizip-debugsource(x86-64)

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

minizip:
    libminizip.so.2.5()(64bit)
    minizip
    minizip(x86-64)

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip/archive/2.5.0/minizip-2.5.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4e832d434f0deaf96bf5188864b09267b21c3445facb01ec6e9b430f2558a60f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e832d434f0deaf96bf5188864b09267b21c3445facb01ec6e9b430f2558a60f


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1615381 -m fedora-28-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Spec URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/minizip.spec

SRPM URL: https://panovotn.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm


Thank you for the suggestion. Mentioned issues should be fixed now.

All issues are fixed now, this package is APPROVED

ps: if you have time could you review this in turn? it's been stalled for a while so if you'll wait until tomorrow I should have it modernized. Thanks in advance!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991284

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minizip

The initial build didn't reference this review request so it never auto-closed