Bug 2036288

> make CFLAGS="-g -O2" %{?_smp_mflags} -C src
This ignores Fedora's CFLAGS. You can use the following, instead:
> %set_build_flags
> %make_build -C src

Thank you for the feedback. I fixed the spec file according to your suggestions and uploaded a new version.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora-35-x86_64/03123558-netrate/netrate.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora-35-x86_64/03123558-netrate/netrate-0.1-2.fc35.src.rpm

> Source0: https://github.com/mindbit/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Please use proper SourceURL form as proscribed in the Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
In this case, that'd be "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz"

< BuildRequires: gcc, make
In general:
BuildRequires: gcc
BuildRequires: make

Thank you for the feedback. I fixed the spec file according to your suggestions and uploaded a new version.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora-35-x86_64/03124650-netrate/netrate.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/playground/fedora-35-x86_64/03124650-netrate/netrate-0.1-3.fc35.src.rpm

Package approved. I'd add some blank lines between Tags: to improve readability, but that's a matter of style/preference, so whatever.


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.
[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 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 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]: 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.
[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.
     NOTE: Successful scratch build in koji can be found at:
     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80872375
[-]: %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: netrate-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          netrate-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          netrate-debugsource-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          netrate-0.1-3.fc36.src.rpm
netrate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary netrate
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: netrate-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





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


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mindbit/netrate/archive/v0.1/netrate-0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c70432afdfff2453a72d92ce66dd1c1a1c50511ebe014e10be3853d5a80aeb0f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c70432afdfff2453a72d92ce66dd1c1a1c50511ebe014e10be3853d5a80aeb0f


Requires
--------
netrate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

netrate-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

netrate-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
netrate:
    netrate
    netrate(x86-64)

netrate-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    netrate-debuginfo
    netrate-debuginfo(x86-64)

netrate-debugsource:
    netrate-debugsource
    netrate-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2036288
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Java, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you so much for reviewing (and approving) the package.

Hi @fedora 

I want to be a contributor for fedora features.
And I am helping other to review the spec/rpm. such as Bug 2036288 Bug 2036468 Bug 2028189.

Would it be possible to sponsor me into the packager group, in that case I can become a commit member to some package rpm.
If you find i am not enough i will continue to helping others rpm/spec. 

Thanks

Sponsor privileges are granted to a limited number of packagers, and I am not one of them.
You can find the full list of users here: https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/

Also, a random bugzilla ticket isn't really the right place to ask for sponsorship.
You should head over to the devel@ mailing list and post a thread there.

The package was approved, but no repo has been requested.
Are you still interested in getting this into Fedora?

OMG, I now realize it's been almost 6 months since I submitted this and you approved the package. I apologize for being completely silent for so long.

Yes, I am still interested in getting this into Fedora, but it looks like getting sponsored is much harder than I thought.

This page [ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/ ] says that "Usually, a sponsor finds you through your sponsorship request in Bugzilla or the packager sponsors pagure instance". I did set this bug to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, and I was hoping a sponsor would "find me" like the aforementioned page says, but obviously that hasn't happened. Is there anything obvious that I missed or did wrong?

Also, do you have any tips on getting sponsored? I did read the docs, but it looks like there is no clear way of getting there. There are a few different things you *can* do, and then you *may* get attention from a sponsor. The program I created this ticket for (netrate) is my own program, and I want to get it into Fedora. But having to get involved with and maintain a dozen other packages just to be able to do so doesn't seem very reasonable or fair.

Hoping someone will notice typically takes a long time, so I recomment going to IRC or the mailing list and finding someone willing to sponsor you.
Getting sponsored is subject to, well, the sponsor's personal judgement, that's why it's recommended to review some other package review requests,
or engage with the community in some other productive way, to convince people you understand the responsibilities involved. 

My question is, are you interested in *becoming a packager*, or *getting this particular program packaged*?
If it's the latter, then I'd be willing to just take this over and maintain the package myself.

Thank you for the information and advice. Much appreciated!

To answer your question, I'm interested in both, but my priority is getting this particular program packaged. Therefore, I'm going to take you up on the offer to maintain the package. Please let me know if there's anything else you need from my side at this point - and thanks again! Needless to say, I will support you going forward in case there is any issue with the program itself and/or there are bug reports against the package.

The reason why I'm also interested in becoming a packager is because I have a few other programs I would like to get into Fedora, and I thought it would be easier if I became a packager myself. I started with netrate, well, because it's the simplest and I needed to start somewhere anyway. Maybe, if it's not too much to ask, you would be willing to take over the other programs as well. Of course, I would create the .spec files and run basic package tests to ease the burden on you.

I'm sponsoring Radu so clearing

There's been no new upstream release, so the package is still latest version.
Some minor stuff needs updating:

> License: GPLv2
With the ongoing migration to SPDX identifiers, this should be changed to "GPL-2.0-only".

> %build
> %set_build_flags
Starting with Fedora 36, the %set_build_flags is now called automatically.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/36/ChangeSet#%set_build_flags_for_%build,_%check,_and_%install_phases

Also, recently the Packaging Guidelines have been changed to favour using %autorelease and %autochangelog
instead of manually editing those, but that's still optional.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_release_tag
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

Arthur, thanks for reviewing this (again) and for the suggestions and pointers to the documentation. I was about to add a new comment and say that fedpkg request-repo now complains that the review is older than 60 days. However, I was aware of the migration to SPDX identifiers and wanted to fix it first and post a new version of the spec. Then I saw your comment - perfect timing :)

So, I posted a new version of the spec here:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rrendec/staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05999311-netrate/netrate.spec

The COPR build page is here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rrendec/staging/build/5999311/

I did not switch to %autorelease and %autochangelog yet. It would require to set up the dist-git repo locally first. Before I switch, I would like to get this package included and get a feel of how dist-git and the whole process work. As far as I understand, I don't see any reason why switching later should not be possible.

The spec looks ok, the package builds fine in koji. Approved (again).

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/netrate

Closing this since netrate-0.1-4.fc39 has been built and is now available in the repo.