Bug 1684524

tl;dr: Minor issues, see the "Issues" section below.


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

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


Issues:
=======
- The package has `Requires: fedora-release-common` which means that it
  cannot be installed on a Fedora Remix. This should be
  `Requires: system-release`
- The dnf-plugin-swidtags subpackage has an unversioned `Requires: swid-tools`
  This should be `Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}` to ensure they
  are always updated together.
- Use %global upstream_name, not %define


===== 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dnf-
     plugin-swidtags
[?]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define upstream_name
     rpm2swidtag
[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.

===== 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: swid-tools-0.7.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          dnf-plugin-swidtags-0.7.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          swid-tools-0.7.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
swid-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2swidtag
swid-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary swidq
dnf-plugin-swidtags.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




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


Requires
--------
dnf-plugin-swidtags (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(dnf-plugin-swidtags)
    python(abi)
    python3-dnf-plugins-core
    swid-tools

swid-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    config(swid-tools)
    fedora-release-common
    python(abi)
    python3-lxml
    python3-rpm
    python3.7dist(lxml)
    python3.7dist(rpm)
    xmlsec1-openssl



Provides
--------
dnf-plugin-swidtags:
    config(dnf-plugin-swidtags)
    dnf-plugin-swidtags

swid-tools:
    config(swid-tools)
    python3.7dist(rpm2swidtag)
    python3dist(rpm2swidtag)
    rpm2swidtag
    swid-tools



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/swidtags/rpm2swidtag/releases/download/rpm2swidtag-0.7.2/rpm2swidtag-0.7.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 92ab80b1fdd7962f272114b6a227d2c5d86c329392c801fb10e4bf3783b7fed8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92ab80b1fdd7962f272114b6a227d2c5d86c329392c801fb10e4bf3783b7fed8


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1684524 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #1)
> tl;dr: Minor issues, see the "Issues" section below.
> 
> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - The package has `Requires: fedora-release-common` which means that it
>   cannot be installed on a Fedora Remix. This should be
>   `Requires: system-release`

The primary reason for the Requires: fedora-release-common is to pull
in a package which owns /etc/swid, to which we put the swidq.conf config file.
Currently,

# rpm -qf /etc/swid
fedora-release-common-30-0.24.noarch

How does the same work on Fedora Remix?

> - The dnf-plugin-swidtags subpackage has an unversioned `Requires:
> swid-tools`
>   This should be `Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}` to ensure
> they
>   are always updated together.
> - Use %global upstream_name, not %define

Will fix these, thanks.

(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #2)
> (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #1)
> > tl;dr: Minor issues, see the "Issues" section below.
> > 
> > 
> > Package Review
> > ==============
> > 
> > Legend:
> > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> > [ ] = Manual review needed
> > 
> > 
> > Issues:
> > =======
> > - The package has `Requires: fedora-release-common` which means that it
> >   cannot be installed on a Fedora Remix. This should be
> >   `Requires: system-release`
> 
> The primary reason for the Requires: fedora-release-common is to pull
> in a package which owns /etc/swid, to which we put the swidq.conf config
> file.
> Currently,
> 
> # rpm -qf /etc/swid
> fedora-release-common-30-0.24.noarch
> 
> How does the same work on Fedora Remix?

A Fedora Remix is required to reimplement anything provided by the fedora-release package in a way that is applicable to their remix. That's why I recommended that you should move your dependency to the `system-release` virtual Provides.

Also, you really don't want to be directly depending on fedora-release-common in any case; it's an implementation detail of the fedora-release-FOO packages. It's not really intended to be depended on by itself.

Stephen Tweedie suggested elsewhere that this might also be a soft dependency. If this package doesn't strictly need this for any reason other than the directory, I'd say that the better approach would just be to drop the dependency entirely and just co-own the /etc/swid directory. This is an acceptable packaging practice (for example, it's used commonly for packages that drop bash-completion content into those paths but don't want to force bash-completion to be installed). In this case, it's kind of a moot point, because it's impossible for any Fedora system to exist that doesn't have a system-release package installed.

> 
> > - The dnf-plugin-swidtags subpackage has an unversioned `Requires:
> > swid-tools`
> >   This should be `Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}` to ensure
> > they
> >   are always updated together.
> > - Use %global upstream_name, not %define
> 
> Will fix these, thanks.

Any time.

Thanks. So my current list of changes to address the issues is

diff --git a/swid-tools.spec b/swid-tools.spec
index 703c2cd..d4ca641 100644
--- a/swid-tools.spec
+++ b/swid-tools.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 
-%define upstream_name rpm2swidtag
+%global upstream_name rpm2swidtag
 
 Summary: Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags
 Name: swid-tools
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ BuildRequires: python3-dnf-plugins-core
 BuildRequires: gzip
 BuildRequires: gnupg2
 
-Requires: fedora-release-common
 Requires: python3-rpm
 Requires: python3-lxml
 Requires: xmlsec1-openssl
@@ -39,7 +38,7 @@ and inspecting SWID tags, including supplemental tag resolution.
 %package -n dnf-plugin-swidtags
 Summary: DNF plugin for keeping SWID tags up-to-date
 Requires: python3-dnf-plugins-core
-Requires: swid-tools
+Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}
 Recommends: dnf
 
 %description -n dnf-plugin-swidtags
@@ -67,6 +66,7 @@ or producing them locally.
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rpm2swidtag/rpm2swidtag.conf.d/*
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rpm2swidtag/*.xml
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rpm2swidtag/*.xslt
+%dir %{_sysconfdir}/swid
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/swid/swidq.conf
 %dir %{_datarootdir}/swidq
 %{_datarootdir}/swidq/stylesheets

Should I respin the .spec and .src.rpm on the existing URLs from comment 0?

(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #4)
> Should I respin the .spec and .src.rpm on the existing URLs from comment 0?

Those changes look like everything I spotted, so yes. Respin it, I'll double-check them and then approve it.

https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/swid-tools.spec and https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/swid-tools-0.7.2-1.fc31.src.rpm respun. I've also run a scratch build at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33132471.

LGTM. Approved.

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

Package swid-tools built built for Fedora rawhide (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1218993) and for Fedora 30 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1218994).