Bug 2068909

> BuildRequires:  redhat-rpm-config
> BuildRequires:  cmake-rpm-macros
Are you sure these are needed? I don't think I've ever seen a package explicitly BuildRequiring them.

> License:        GPLv2
Looking through the sources, the license headers in .h files say:
> either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version
So this should be "GPLv2+".

> %files
> %{_cups_serverbin}/filter/rastertobrlaser
> %{_datadir}/cups/drv/brlaser.drv
> %doc README.md
The COPYING file is not installed.

Also, the build process includes building some tests, but, looking at the build log,
these don't seem to be executed. Please add:
> %check
> %ctest
To the spec, or consider patching the CMakeLists.txt so the tests aren't built.

Thank you very much for your review, here's an updated spec file and SRPM with all your suggestions implemented:

Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/obudai/brlaser/brlaser.git/tree/brlaser.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/obudai/brlaser/srpm-builds/04156252/brlaser-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc35.src.rpm

The README says:

> Some operating systems already ship this driver. This is the case for at least Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Raspbian, openSUSE, NixOS, Arch Linux and Guix. Look for a package named printer-driver-brlaser.

Maybe this package should be named the same? Or at least provide printer-driver-brlaser.

> You'll also need Ghostscript, in case that's not installed automatically.

So, this should probably require ghostscript.

> %files
> %doc README.md COPYING
COPYING should be marked as "%license", not "%doc".

(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3)
> The README says:
> 
> > Some operating systems already ship this driver. This is the case for at least Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Raspbian, openSUSE, NixOS, Arch Linux and Guix. Look for a package named printer-driver-brlaser.
> 
> Maybe this package should be named the same? Or at least provide
> printer-driver-brlaser.

I renamed the package to printer-driver-brlaser to match Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE. BSD and Alpine named it just brlaser so we might want to provide that but maybe let's start simply and add that if anyone complains?


(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4)
> > You'll also need Ghostscript, in case that's not installed automatically.
> 
> So, this should probably require ghostscript.

Correct, thanks, added.

(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #5)
> > %files
> > %doc README.md COPYING
> COPYING should be marked as "%license", not "%doc".


Ah, of course, fixed, thanks!

Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/obudai/brlaser/printer-driver-brlaser.git/plain/brlaser.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/obudai/brlaser/srpm-builds/04162617/printer-driver-brlaser-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc35.src.rpm

Hi Artur,

have you had any chance to review the latest version of the spec file? I would like to push this over the finish line. :)

Thanks,
Ondřej

Hi Ondřej, sorry for making you wait so long.

The package looks good, there's just two minor issues:
1. The spec file name doesn't match the package name.
   It should be renamed to "printer-driver-brlaser.spec".
2. In the changelog, there's some mangled encoding:
> * Sun Mar 27 2022 Ondřej Budai

Hello Artur, I'm sorry for my impatience. :)

I fixed the spec file name and my name in the spec file, I wonder whether cgit cannot handle unicode.

Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/obudai/printer-driver-brlaser/printer-driver-brlaser.git/plain/printer-driver-brlaser.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/obudai/printer-driver-brlaser/srpm-builds/04310854/printer-driver-brlaser-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc35.src.rpm

All's good now. Package approved.


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

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


===== 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).
[?]: 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.
     NOTE: Successfull scratch build for rawhide can be found at:
     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=86205776
[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: 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: printer-driver-brlaser-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc37.x86_64.rpm
          printer-driver-brlaser-debuginfo-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc37.x86_64.rpm
          printer-driver-brlaser-debugsource-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc37.x86_64.rpm
          printer-driver-brlaser-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc37.src.rpm
printer-driver-brlaser.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 6-1 ['6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc37', '6-1.20200420git9d7ddda']
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: printer-driver-brlaser-debuginfo-6-1.20200420git9d7ddda.fc37.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/pdewacht/brlaser/archive/9d7ddda8383bfc4d205b5e1b49de2b8bcd9137f1/brlaser-9d7ddda8383bfc4d205b5e1b49de2b8bcd9137f1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f4769a3ff702fd3bc047192e79fa07a2778cf8baa56d802c0af91cc43dd0a7af
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f4769a3ff702fd3bc047192e79fa07a2778cf8baa56d802c0af91cc43dd0a7af


Requires
--------
printer-driver-brlaser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cups-filesystem
    ghostscript
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcups.so.2()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

printer-driver-brlaser-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

printer-driver-brlaser-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
printer-driver-brlaser:
    printer-driver-brlaser
    printer-driver-brlaser(x86-64)

printer-driver-brlaser-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    printer-driver-brlaser-debuginfo
    printer-driver-brlaser-debuginfo(x86-64)

printer-driver-brlaser-debugsource:
    printer-driver-brlaser-debugsource
    printer-driver-brlaser-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2068909
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, Java, Ocaml, R, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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