Bug 1714620

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35106227 is the correct scratch build.

The spec file is a little odd because upstream provides tarballs using the mlr name but miller seems like a more appropriate package name. Obviously I can revisit this if necessary.

>mlr.spec
>Name: miller
The filename of the spec should match the name of the package.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming

>Group: Applications/Text
>Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
>...
>%clean
Not used in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

>%install
>rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
Don't do this.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

>%files
>%{_mandir}/man1/mlr.1.gz
Do not assume that man pages will be compressed using gzip. Use a wildcard instead.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

>%defattr(755, root, root, -)
>%defattr(644, root, root, -)
These are discouraged and usually not needed.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions

Thanks for the review!

(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #2)
> >mlr.spec
> >Name: miller
> The filename of the spec should match the name of the package.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming

Fixed, thanks (I checked with upstream, using “miller” as the package name is fine and matches other distributions).

I fixed all the other issues you flagged, plus a few more which I noticed from reviewing the packaging guide (which I hadn’t read for a while, mea culpa):
* enable hardened build options
* use %make macros as appropriate
* install the license and README
* fix the changelog

The upstream PR to fix the .spec file is at https://github.com/johnkerl/miller/pull/249 (but the diff there is useless, too much has changed), and I’ve updated the files on http://sk2.org/miller/

rpmlint only complains about spelling (“mlr”, “sed”, “awk”), and the automated tests in fedora-review didn’t highlight anything amiss.

 - %global _hardened_build 1 is already the default now so this isn't needed anymore

 - Please split your changelog entries with a newline (our script used during mass rebuild enforces this)

Package approved.



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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GPL (v2 or later)", "FSF
     Unlimited License (with Retention)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
     License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 4-clause
     "Original" or "Old" License". 566 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/miller/review-
     miller/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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 20480 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 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[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: miller-5.4.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          miller-debuginfo-5.4.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          miller-debugsource-5.4.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          miller-5.4.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
miller.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed -> tied, ed, seed
miller.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk
miller.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mlr -> ml, mar, mgr
miller.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed -> tied, ed, seed
miller.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

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

FEDORA-2019-430eb22dcf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-430eb22dcf

miller-5.4.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-430eb22dcf

miller-5.4.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.