Bug 1909390
Summary: | Review Request: gn - Meta-build system that generates build files for Ninja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ben Beasley <code> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zebob.m:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2021-03-22 02:09:20 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Ben Beasley
2020-12-19 16:27:45 UTC
This submission follows https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Emacs/; however, I am tracking current discussion of deprecating XEmacs on the fedora-devel list, and am prepared to remove the XEmacs versions of the Emacs extensions once that deprecation occurs. Updated to latest version while awaiting review… Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/gn-rpm/-/raw/675936422482aa8768ed28236d2cbbd9765cc1f1/gn.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/883/58860883/gn-1876-1.20210103git0d67e272.fc34.src.rpm Koji builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58860862 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58860863 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58860871 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58860872 Let’s try that again, with the updated last_commit_position.h actually copied into the source RPM. Happily, the grep invocations in %check broke the build as intended. Should be good now: Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/gn-rpm/-/raw/675936422482aa8768ed28236d2cbbd9765cc1f1/gn.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4127/58924127/gn-1876-1.20210103git0d67e272.fc34.src.rpm Koji builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58924056 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58924078 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58924085 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58924110 Updated again while awaiting review… Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/fedora-rpm/-/raw/f72e58a8ccdac3a1408f9fa7ae0fe0c08f10a20e/gn.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6511/60666511/gn-1884-1.20210127git94bda7cc.fc34.src.rpm Koji builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60666479 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60666546 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60666553 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60666555 Updated again while awaiting review… Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/fedora-rpm/-/raw/4522043859352cd0a089f81db9d97d6b9347f260/gn.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2121/62892121/gn-1891-1.20210301gitdfcbc6fe.fc35.src.rpm Koji builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62892120 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62892503 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62892505 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62892509 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62892510 It appears gitlab is serving a 403 error to the fedora-review tool even though the spec URL is otherwise good, perhaps by blocking user-agents not on a whitelist. This is obnoxious. The following URL should work for everyone: https://music.fedorapeople.org/gn.spec Updated again while awaiting review… Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/gn-64b3b9401c1c3ed5f3c43c1cac00b91f83597ab8/gn.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/gn-64b3b9401c1c3ed5f3c43c1cac00b91f83597ab8/gn-1893-1.20210314git64b3b940.fc33.src.rpm Koji builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63764650 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63764655 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63764659 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63764662 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63764698 - Consider adding the name to the archive filename: Source0: %{url}/+archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. 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]: 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Public domain", "Apache License 2.0". 800 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gn/review-gn/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gn-1893-1.20210314git64b3b940.fc35.x86_64.rpm gn-doc-1893-1.20210314git64b3b940.fc35.noarch.rpm gn-debuginfo-1893-1.20210314git64b3b940.fc35.x86_64.rpm gn-debugsource-1893-1.20210314git64b3b940.fc35.x86_64.rpm gn-1893-1.20210314git64b3b940.fc35.src.rpm gn-doc.noarch: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/doc/gn-doc/examples/ios/.gitignore gn-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gn-doc/examples/ios/.gn gn-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gn-doc/examples/ios/app/Foo-Bridging-Header.h gn-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gn-doc/examples/rust_example/.gn gn-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gn-doc/examples/simple_build/.gn gn.src: W: strange-permission update-version 755 gn.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 70: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: emacs-filesystem >= %{_emacs_version} gn.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 73: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: xemacs-filesystem >= %{_xemacs_version} 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings. Thanks for the review! > - Consider adding the name to the archive filename: > > Source0: %{url}/+archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz It’s funny—I think I remember getting feedback to remove this trick in another package! I like the nicer filename, though. I’ll adjust it. Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32954 It looks like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Deprecate_xemacs was accepted (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2540), so I will also remove the xemacs support from the spec file before submitting a build to Rawhide. (In reply to code from comment #10) > It looks like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Deprecate_xemacs was > accepted (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2540), so I will also remove the > xemacs support from the spec file before submitting a build to Rawhide. On Github this is not necessary, you can pass the filename directly. > On Github this is not necessary, you can pass the filename directly.
Indeed, that’s probably what it was.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gn FEDORA-2021-0974eec362 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0974eec362 FEDORA-2021-9607a96485 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9607a96485 FEDORA-2021-98ee255ae8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-98ee255ae8 FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8130010c8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8130010c8b FEDORA-2021-9607a96485 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9607a96485 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9607a96485 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-98ee255ae8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-98ee255ae8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-98ee255ae8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8130010c8b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8130010c8b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-cc19efedc0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-cc19efedc0` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cc19efedc0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-cc19efedc0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-98ee255ae8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-9607a96485 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d72bcdda41 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d72bcdda41 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d72bcdda41 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |