Bug 2065938

Hello Jani,
thank you for the package.

I am trying to build it in Mock/Copr and it fails. Can you please try?


> License:	BSD

I am not sure if it is required yet, but Fedora is moving toward SPDX
license names. For BSD, it would be BSD-3-Clause
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/


> %description
> ...
> %description devel
> ...

There is a trick how to avoid copy-pasting the description
text. You can define a variable like this

    %global _description %{expand:
    Chibi-Scheme is a very small library intended for use as an extension
    ...and the rest of the text}

And then you can define your description like this

    %description %_description

And your devel description like this

    %description -n %{pypi_name} %_description

    This package contains the development files alongside the tool `chibi-ffi`.


> %set_build_flags

This is AFAIK called automatically, and I think this line can be removed


> %{_mandir}/man1/*

Can you please be more specific here? You can still use * instead of
the file type, but the manpage name should be explicit.

> Name:		chibi-scheme
> Version:	0.10.0
> Release:	1%{?dist}

This is up to your preference but I would suggest not aligning text
into columns like these using TABs. It breaks when another person is
using a different TAB width than you. For example, you can try

      vim python-pyvips.spec
      :set tabstop=12

or just experimenting with various TAB widths in your favorite
editor. When using spaces, the columns are always aligned the same.

(This is a different topic from TABs vs spaces for indentation,
i.e. whitespace on the beginning of the line. I wouldn't have any
suggestions there because I don't want to start a holy war :D)

Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme.spec
SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme-0.10.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

Was a bit distracted (once again...) but I went though your suggestions and fixed the build failure.

Thank you for the changes Jani,


> Summary:	Development files for chibi-scheme
> Requires:	%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

I see you switched to spaces. Good :-)
You forgot two TABs here ^^


> %post
> # Always generate images when installing (upgrade or not)
> %{_bindir}/chibi-scheme -mchibi.repl -d %{_datadir}/chibi/chibi.img
> %{_bindir}/chibi-scheme -xscheme.red -mchibi.repl -d %{_datadir}/chibi/red.img
> %{_bindir}/chibi-scheme -mchibi.snow.commands -mchibi.snow.interface -mchibi.snow.package -mchibi.snow.utils -d %{_datadir}/chibi/snow.img

We typically try to avoid using scriptlets as much as possible. I am
not familiar with the chibi-scheme project, so I want to ask you - Do
we really need to run these commands on the user machine? Would it be
possible to prepare these .img files at the end of the %build section
and then move them where they should be in the %install section?

Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme.spec
SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme-0.10.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

Fixed the final tabs. Now everything should finally be consistent :)

As for the scriptlets, I explained in the %install section why they're needed, but I've now added additional
comments at %post to explain their necessity. The gist is that it cannot be done at %build since the paths within
the image files would point to absolute paths within the buildroot, which is not something we want. And just going ahead
and manually changing them would probably not be a good thing either, since these images are basically just RAM dumps
of the execution, and thus changing them would be rather delicate.

FWIW Debian for example also does this kind of post-install script thing for the same reason with their chibi-scheme package.

> As for the scriptlets

I see, thank you very much for the explanation and for the additional
comments in the spec file.

I already wanted to give +1 but the fedora-review tool revealed a
couple more things.


> [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
>
> Unversioned so-files
> --------------------
> chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/ast.so
> chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/crypto/crypto.so
> chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/disasm.so
> chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/emscripten.so
> chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/filesystem.so
> ...

Do you understand what is wrong here? My understanding is that those
should be provided by the chibi-scheme-devel package or there should
be a number suffix in those names, e.g. ast.so.0

But I must admit that it is outside of my scope so I mainly just hope
that you know what is going on here :-)


> MIT License
> -----------
> chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/101.scm
> chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135.scm
> chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135.sld
> chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135/kernel8.body.scm
> chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135/kernel8.sld
> chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135/test.sld

From https://synthcode.com/scheme/chibi/#h2_SnowPackageManager

> Beyond the distributed modules, Chibi comes with a package manager
> based on Snow2 ...

Should the lib be bundled or installed as a separate package? If
bundled, I guess we will have to mention MIT in the License field

    License: BSD-3-Clause AND MIT



> [!]: 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)


I guess you forgot to rebuild your SRPM package after updating the
spec file?


    Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
    ---------------------------------
    --- /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm/chibi-scheme.spec	2022-11-11 19:25:34.442506969 +0100
    +++ /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm-unpacked/chibi-scheme.spec	2022-11-11 18:32:05.000000000 +0100
    @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
    +## START: Set by rpmautospec
    +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
    +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-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*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
    +## END: Set by rpmautospec
    +
    %global _description %{expand:
    Chibi-Scheme is a very small library intended for use as an extension
    @@ -89,3 +98,4 @@

    %changelog
    -%autochangelog
    +* Fri Nov 11 2022 John Doe <packager> 0.10.0-1
    +- Uncommitted changes

> Do you understand what is wrong here? My understanding is that those
> should be provided by the chibi-scheme-devel package or there should
> be a number suffix in those names, e.g. ast.so.0
>
> But I must admit that it is outside of my scope so I mainly just hope
> that you know what is going on here :-)

This would usually be the case, but in this particular instance this is fine.
This is due to the fact that, as fedora-review here says, they're in a private subdir under %_libdir, and they will not be in ld path.

These unversioned files are needed, as they provide the C implementations for various necessary things,
like for example the `(chibi ast)` and `(chibi crypto sha2)` modules, and these are needed at runtime even without having the -devel package installed.

> If bundled, I guess we will have to mention MIT in the License field

Done. These SRFI implementations are a part of the project proper, they were just imported from elsewhere
and thus they have differing license terms. But nevertheless they're still necessary.

> I guess you forgot to rebuild your SRPM package after updating the spec file?

In this case it's just fedora-review not properly understanding how %autorelease and %autochangelog work.
Basically when those macros are expanded, %autorelease computes the next available release number for a given version,
while %autochangelog generates %changelog entries from distgit commit messages.

This is harmless and expected behaviour.

Thank you very much,



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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.

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", "*No copyright*
     Public domain", "MIT License". 698 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-
     scheme/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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 368640 bytes in 39 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).
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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)
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3399680 bytes in /usr/share
[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).


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


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



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4

chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snow-chibi
chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snow-chibi.scm
chibi-scheme.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/system.so
chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/chibi/.chibi.meta
chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/chibi/.scheme.meta
chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/chibi/.srfi.meta
chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 4.9 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/ast.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/crypto/crypto.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/disasm.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/emscripten.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/filesystem.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/heap-stats.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/io/io.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/json.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/net.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/optimize/profile.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/optimize/rest.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/process.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/pty.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/stty.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/system.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/threads.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/time.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/weak.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/scheme/bytevector.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/scheme/time.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/144/math.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/151/bit.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/160/uvprims.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/18/threads.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/27/rand.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/39/param.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/69/hash.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/95/qsort.so
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/98/env.so

Source checksums
----------------
http://synthcode.com/scheme/chibi/chibi-scheme-0.10.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8db67f420c86b07ad47ce42b65ae2948a80e607fb658595cbe3381ef537c40cf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8db67f420c86b07ad47ce42b65ae2948a80e607fb658595cbe3381ef537c40cf


Requires
--------
chibi-scheme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/chibi-scheme
    /usr/bin/sh
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libchibi-scheme.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

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

chibi-scheme-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

chibi-scheme-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
chibi-scheme:
    chibi-scheme
    chibi-scheme(x86-64)
    libchibi-scheme.so.0()(64bit)

chibi-scheme-devel:
    chibi-scheme-devel
    chibi-scheme-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(chibi-scheme)

chibi-scheme-debuginfo:
    chibi-scheme-debuginfo
    chibi-scheme-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libchibi-scheme.so.0.10.0-0.10.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

chibi-scheme-debugsource:
    chibi-scheme-debugsource
    chibi-scheme-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm/chibi-scheme.spec	2022-11-12 11:20:59.994460100 +0100
+++ /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm-unpacked/chibi-scheme.spec	2022-11-11 21:38:25.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-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*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global _description %{expand:
 Chibi-Scheme is a very small library intended for use as an extension
@@ -91,3 +100,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Fri Nov 11 2022 John Doe <packager> 0.10.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2065938
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, R, Perl, Java, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

One last thing to consider, but not I won't block the review because
of it. There is a tests directory in the upstream repo
https://github.com/ashinn/chibi-scheme/tree/master/tests

Maybe we can add a %check section and run them?

> One last thing to consider, but not I won't block the review because
> of it. There is a tests directory in the upstream repo
> https://github.com/ashinn/chibi-scheme/tree/master/tests
>
> Maybe we can add a %check section and run them?

I'll look into it. Anyway, thanks for the review! :)

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

FEDORA-2022-8cd3e4d44c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8cd3e4d44c

FEDORA-2022-8cd3e4d44c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-82bb959135 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-82bb959135

FEDORA-2022-82bb959135 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-82bb959135 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-82bb959135

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-82bb959135 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.