Bug 2053959

Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/yaksa.spec
SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/yaksa-0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm

Both the spec and SRPM link give me a 403 Forbidden.

Ooops ;)

Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/yaksa.spec
SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/yaksa-0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm

Thanks. Spec file and source RPM are accessible

I will take this review.  If you are up for a python package, I could use a review of bug 2080472.

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

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

Issues
======
- Package contains bundled files from uthash-devel: src/external/yuthash.h and
  src/external/yutlist.h.  Can it be unbundled?

- Note the rpmlint complaint about strange permission on yaksa.spec

===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General
     Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 1-Clause License". 210 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jamesjer/2053959-yaksa/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in yaksa-
     devel
[?]: 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.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[!]: 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 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros


Rpmlint
-------
yaksa.src: W: strange-permission yaksa.spec 600
yaksa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
yaksa-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libyaksa.so.0.0.0-0.2-1.fc37.x86_64.debug
yaksa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libyaksa.so.0.0.0-0.2-1.fc37.x86_64.debug
yaksa-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
yaksa-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
yaksa-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ce/6ed942303236e1f6c16aaf4a153109c7d3db48 ../../../.build-id/ce/6ed942303236e1f6c16aaf4a153109c7d3db48


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
yaksa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pmodels/yaksa/archive/v0.2/yaksa-0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9401cb6153dc8c34ddb9781bbabd418fd26b0a27b5da3294ecc21af7be9c86f2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9401cb6153dc8c34ddb9781bbabd418fd26b0a27b5da3294ecc21af7be9c86f2


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

yaksa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libyaksa.so.0()(64bit)
    yaksa(x86-64)

yaksa-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

yaksa-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
yaksa:
    libyaksa.so.0()(64bit)
    yaksa
    yaksa(x86-64)

yaksa-devel:
    pkgconfig(yaksa)
    yaksa-devel
    yaksa-devel(x86-64)

yaksa-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libyaksa.so.0.0.0-0.2-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    yaksa-debuginfo
    yaksa-debuginfo(x86-64)

yaksa-debugsource:
    yaksa-debugsource
    yaksa-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jamesjer/2053959-yaksa/srpm/yaksa.spec	2022-04-29 13:56:41.769418168 -0600
+++ /home/jamesjer/2053959-yaksa/srpm-unpacked/yaksa.spec	2022-04-10 03:12:57.000000000 -0600
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           yaksa
 Version:        0.2
@@ -61,3 +70,7 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Sun Apr 10 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek.pl> 0.2-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Sun Feb 13 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek.pl> 0.1-1
+- Initial packaging


Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2053959 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, R, Java, Ruby, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

- Package contains bundled files from uthash-devel: src/external/yuthash.h and
  src/external/yutlist.h.  Can it be unbundled?

Done.

- Note the rpmlint complaint about strange permission on yaksa.spec

I think this is some artefact of rpmautospec. Locally the spec file has normal mode.
Regardless, it should go away once the import to dist-git happens, since
git doesn't track the full permission set anyway.

Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/yaksa.spec
SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/yaksa-0.2-2.fc37.src.rpm

--

> I could use a review of bug 2080472.

I'll try to do it this weekend. Sorry for the delay.

Oh, I see Ben took in the meantime. If you have something else, I can do it.

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8)
> Oh, I see Ben took in the meantime. If you have something else, I can do it.

Well, it was my turn for a delay. :-)  I have nothing else at the moment.  Don't worry about it.

This package is APPROVED.

Oh, this was built a long time ago. I forgot to close the ticket.