Bug 1886464

Taking a rough first look at this, there are some things that definitely need to be addressed:

1) Requires: rpm-libs

This needs to be moved into the package that actually contains the binary (from line 22 to 31).


2) Cargo.toml specifies that this crate ships a shared library for use from C.
But the dylib is not built, and the header file is not installed. Is this intentional?


3) Cargo.toml specifies license = "LGPL-2.1-or-later", but the crate contains both GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ license texts.

Which license applies to what? Looking at the license headers, it seems like the "blsctl" binary is GPLv3+ and the crate library component is LGPLv2+.

The License tags in the .spec file need to reflect that. Assuming my assessment is correct, you'll need to add a "License: GPLv3+" tag to the binary package (line 32).

The "rpm-libs" dependency should not be required, since it should auto-generate librpm dependencies.

Thanks a lot Fabio and Neal for the feedback. I'll address the issues you pointed out.

A second version of this can be found here:

Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v2/rust-blsctl.spec
SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v2/rust-blsctl-0.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm

Changes in v2:

- Add the proper licence tags to the sub-packages for the binary and library creates.
- Bump create version to 2.2.0, that contains a fix for the library crate definition.
- Remove the rpm-libs dependency.

(In reply to Javier Martinez Canillas from comment #4)

[snip]

> - Bump create version to 2.2.0, that contains a fix for the library crate
> definition.

I meant 0.2.2 here.

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

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


Issues:
=======

Need to include both license files in the %{crate} -devel and subpackages.


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/blsctl/0.2.2/download#/blsctl-0.2.2.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 89dc8e982ab699dd1a9f12f730e0e4f657cf5d86c915df4ec2876a229f029d5d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89dc8e982ab699dd1a9f12f730e0e4f657cf5d86c915df4ec2876a229f029d5d


Requires
--------
blsctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librpmio.so.9()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

rust-blsctl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo

rust-blsctl+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(blsctl)

rust-blsctl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
blsctl:
    blsctl
    blsctl(x86-64)

rust-blsctl-devel:
    crate(blsctl)
    rust-blsctl-devel

rust-blsctl+default-devel:
    crate(blsctl/default)
    rust-blsctl+default-devel

rust-blsctl-debugsource:
    rust-blsctl-debugsource
    rust-blsctl-debugsource(x86-64)


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1886464 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, R, PHP, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

I.e. something like the lines marked "+" are missing:

 %files       -n %{crate}
+%license LICENSE.gpl3
 %{_bindir}/blsctl

 %files          devel
+%license LICENSE.lgpl2
 %{cargo_registry}/%{crate}-%{version_no_tilde}/

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7)
> I.e. something like the lines marked "+" are missing:
> 
>  %files       -n %{crate}
> +%license LICENSE.gpl3
>  %{_bindir}/blsctl
> 
>  %files          devel
> +%license LICENSE.lgpl2
>  %{cargo_registry}/%{crate}-%{version_no_tilde}/

Thanks again for the feedback. There is a v3 that fixes this:

Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v3/rust-blsctl.spec
SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v3/rust-blsctl-0.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks!

Package APPROVED.

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