Bug 2018361

I can see no problems, ticks all the MUST boxes as defined by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_things_to_check_on_review.

[x] rpmlint ✓
[x] naming conventions ✓
[x] language ✓
[x] source ✓
[x] compiles & architectures ✓
[x] deps ✓
[x] permissions, dirs & files ✓
[x] no static libs ✓
[x] suffixed -devel ✓
[x] license ✓

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

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

===== Issues =====

- For a multiply-licensed package:

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios

  you must document the multiple licensing breakdown in a comment of some sort.

  Based on my inspection of the source file licensing, I think the following
  would be appropriate:

    # The entire source is GPLv3+, except:
    #
    # LGPLv3+:
    #   pal.h pal1sofa.h palmac.h
    #
    #   palAmpqk.c palDat.c palDe2h.c palDeuler.c palDh2e.c palDjcal.c
    #   palDmat.c palDrange.c palDs2tp.c palDtp2s.c palDtps2c.c palDtt.c
    #   palEcmat.c palEqgal.c palEtrms.c palEvp.c palFk45z.c palFk524.c
    #   palFk54z.c palGaleq.c palGeoc.c palMappa.c palMapqkz.c palPrebn.c
    #   palPrec.c palPrenut.c palPvobs.c palRvlg.c palRvlsrd.c palRvlsrk.c
    #
    # (Some build-system files, which do not contribute to the licenses of the
    # binary RPMs, are under other licenses.)
    #
    # The effective license of the library and documenation is therefore
    # GPLv3+, while the API headers are all LGPLv3+.

  Considering this, I think you can actually consider the base package to be

    License:        GPLv3+

  since the combined library is effectively GPLv3+ and the documentation files
  that are installed directly are individually GPLv3+ (see:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F),
  and add to the -devel package:

    License:        LGPLv3+

  —ideally still with the comment as explanation.

- While there is no general rule against using broad globs under shared
  directories, the new Python guidelines have some good arguments for not doing
  so in general:

    https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_explicit_lists

  This would suggest that

    %files
    %license COPYING*
    %doc README.md pal.news sun267.pdf
    %{_libdir}/*.so.0*
    
    %files devel
    %{_includedir}/*
    %{_libdir}/*.so

  might be better written as

    %files
    %license COPYING*
    %doc README.md pal.news sun267.pdf
    %{_libdir}/libpal.so.0*
    
    %files devel
    %{_includedir}/star
    %{_libdir}/libpal.so

  or even:

    %files
    %license COPYING*
    %doc README.md pal.news sun267.pdf
    %{_libdir}/libpal.so.0*
    
    %files devel
    # Directory is co-owned with ast-devel, which is related but not required
    %dir %{_includedir}/star
    %{_includedir}/star/pal*.h
    %{_libdir}/libpal.so

  Since there is, as far as I know, no general guideline on this subject,
  this is merely a suggestion, and no change is required for approval.

- Since the documentation is much larger than the library, I would be inclined
  to put it in a separate -doc subpackage, or at least include the PDF with the
  -devel package instead of the base package (but note that this would make the
  -devel package multiply-licensed again). However, the absolute size is still
  considered “small” at half a megabyte or so, so no change is required.

- The dependency from the -devel package on the base package should be arched:

    Requires:       %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

  See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package.

===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU
     General Public License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
     "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU
     General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0
     or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later". 26 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2018361-libpal/licensecheck.txt

     License field is technically correct, but lacks breakdown and can be more
     precise. See Issues.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.

     See Issues.

[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/star(ast-devel)

     Co-owned directory is acceptable under “The directory is owned by a
     package which is not required for your package to function”
     (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function):
     the ast-devel package is related, but the headers for this package do not
     transitively include any headers from that package, so there is correctly
     no dependency.

[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 430080 bytes in 3 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libpal-
     devel
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (based on tests passing)

[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.
     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.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



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


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Starlink/pal/releases/download/v0.9.8/pal-0.9.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 191fde8c4f45d6807d4b011511344014966bb46e44029a4481d070cd5e7cc697
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 191fde8c4f45d6807d4b011511344014966bb46e44029a4481d070cd5e7cc697


Requires
--------
libpal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liberfa.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libpal-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libpal
    libpal.so.0()(64bit)

libpal-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libpal-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libpal:
    libpal
    libpal(x86-64)
    libpal.so.0()(64bit)

libpal-devel:
    libpal-devel
    libpal-devel(x86-64)

libpal-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libpal-debuginfo
    libpal-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libpal.so.0.0.0-0.9.8-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libpal-debugsource:
    libpal-debugsource
    libpal-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2018361
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, fonts, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Good comments.  Hopefully everything has been addressed.

https://orion.fedorapeople.org/libpal-0.9.8-2.fc36.src.rpm
https://orion.fedorapeople.org/libpal.spec

* Thu Nov 11 2021 Orion Poplawski <orion> - 0.9.8-2
- Document licensing
- More explicit files
- Split out doc

Thanks! The package looks good. I found only one remaining issue, below:

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

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

===== Issues =====

- The -doc subpackage should have:

    BuildArch:      noarch

===== Notes =====

- I think all of these rpmlint diagnostics are either spurious or inapproprate
  for Fedora:

    libpal.src: W: strange-permission pal-0.9.8.tar.gz 660
    libpal.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
    libpal-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on libpal*/libpal-libs/liblibpal* = 0.9.8
    libpal.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libpal.so.0.0.0 libpal.so.0.0.0

===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU
     General Public License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
     "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU
     General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0
     or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later". 26 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2018361-libpal/20211112/2018361-libpal/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/star(ast-devel)

     Co-owned directory is correct under “The directory is owned by a
     package which is not required for your package to function”
     (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function):
     the ast-devel package is related, but the headers for this package do not
     transitively include any headers from that package, so there is correctly
     no dependency.

     The spec file comment documenting the situation is helpful.

[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: Package functions as described.

     (based on tests passing)

[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.
     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.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



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


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Starlink/pal/releases/download/v0.9.8/pal-0.9.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 191fde8c4f45d6807d4b011511344014966bb46e44029a4481d070cd5e7cc697
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 191fde8c4f45d6807d4b011511344014966bb46e44029a4481d070cd5e7cc697


Requires
--------
libpal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liberfa.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libpal-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libpal(x86-64)
    libpal.so.0()(64bit)

libpal-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libpal-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libpal-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libpal:
    libpal
    libpal(x86-64)
    libpal.so.0()(64bit)

libpal-devel:
    libpal-devel
    libpal-devel(x86-64)

libpal-doc:
    libpal-doc
    libpal-doc(x86-64)

libpal-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libpal-debuginfo
    libpal-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libpal.so.0.0.0-0.9.8-2.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libpal-debugsource:
    libpal-debugsource
    libpal-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2018361
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, R, PHP, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 5

libpal.src: W: strange-permission pal-0.9.8.tar.gz 660
libpal.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
libpal-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on libpal*/libpal-libs/liblibpal* = 0.9.8
libpal.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libpal.so.0.0.0 libpal.so.0.0.0
 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s

Ah, yes.  Silly mistake.  Fixed

https://orion.fedorapeople.org/libpal-0.9.8-3.fc36.src.rpm
https://orion.fedorapeople.org/libpal.spec

* Fri Nov 12 2021 Orion Poplawski <orion> - 0.9.8-3
- Make doc noarch


(BTW - I would suggest not setting the needinfo flag on a bug unless someone hasn't responded for a bit of time.  It results in multiple emails which I find a bit annoying)

> (BTW - I would suggest not setting the needinfo flag on a bug unless someone
> hasn't responded for a bit of time.  It results in multiple emails which I
> find a bit annoying)

That’s reasonable—I have a habit of setting it on package reviews, but I’ll try without.

Thanks for your adjustments! Your latest SRPM link doesn’t work (error 403), but the package is approved by examination of the spec file diff from the previous submission:

--- 20211112/2018361-libpal/srpm-unpacked/libpal.spec   2021-11-11 22:30:16.000000000 -0500
+++ 20211113/2018361-libpal/libpal.spec 2021-11-13 08:55:31.227687206 -0500
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Name:           libpal
 Version:        0.9.8
-Release:        2%{?dist}
+Release:        3%{?dist}
 Summary:        Positional Astronomy Library
 
 # The entire source is GPLv3+, except:
@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
 %package        doc
 Summary:        Documentation for %{name}
 License:        GPLv3+
+BuildArch:      noarch
 
 %description    doc
 The %{name}-doc package contains documentation for %{name}.
@@ -91,6 +92,9 @@
 %doc sun267.pdf
 
 %changelog
+* Fri Nov 12 2021 Orion Poplawski <orion> - 0.9.8-3
+- Make doc noarch
+
 * Thu Nov 11 2021 Orion Poplawski <orion> - 0.9.8-2
 - Document licensing
 - More explicit files

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

Checked in and built.