Bug 2107313

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89506531

Updated spec and SRPM, moving folly_arches to folly-rpm-macros as it's not needed until compile time

Tested with rebuilding folly with the ExcludeArch lines replaced with ExclusiveArch: %{folly_arches} and BuildRequires: folly-rpm-macros

For testing folly-srpm-macros, the package has to be injected into the mock root until we get it added to redhat-rpm-config

Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/folly-rpm-macros.spec
SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/folly-rpm-macros-37-1.fc36.src.rpm

Taking this review

This package is crashing fedora-review:

07-14 19:34 root         DEBUG    Running check: CheckSourceUrl
07-14 19:34 root         DEBUG        CheckSourceUrl completed: 0.000 seconds
07-14 19:34 root         DEBUG    Running check: CheckSourceVerification
07-14 19:34 root         DEBUG    Exception down the road...
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 236, in run
    self._do_run(outfile)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 226, in _do_run
    self._do_report(outfile)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 99, in _do_report
    self._run_checks(self.bug.spec_file, self.bug.srpm_file, outfile)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 117, in _run_checks
    self.checks.run_checks(output=output, writedown=not Settings.no_report)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 382, in run_checks
    run_check(name)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 357, in run_check
    check.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic_should.py", line 584, in run
    for line in self.spec.get_section("prep"):
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable

Pretty sure you need to have %prep and %build sections even if they're empty.

huh. I just realized python-rpm-macros at least has a %prep (but not %build). let me try. Though I think it's also a bug in fedora-review that needs to be fixed, otherwise packages without a tarball would just fail like this

rpmlint generates warnings for missing prep and build, so fair enough, might as well keep it happy.

Fixed (same URLs) and sent up a FedoraReview PR to stop the gpgverify check from blowing up https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/449

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

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



===== MUST items =====

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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d,
     /usr/lib/rpm
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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 folly-
     srpm-macros
[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.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


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


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


Requires
--------
folly-rpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

folly-srpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
folly-rpm-macros:
    folly-rpm-macros
    rpm_macro(folly_arches)

folly-srpm-macros:
    folly-srpm-macros
    rpm_macro(folly_toolchain)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2107313
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, Ocaml, R, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

rpmlint is fine:

folly-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
folly-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
folly-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
folly-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation

In macros.folly-rpm the referenced bug is closed; also, ppc64le isn't big endian, so you may wanna adjust the comment. Likewise for macros.folly-srpm we should reference a BZ or an upstream issue about the GCC 12 ftbfs.

For this one I think it's enough to add a Requires on rpm:

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d,
     /usr/lib/rpm

or you can own them yourself in %files.

Please fix the above nits on import, APPROVED otherwise.

Thanks!

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45781

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

Package is now in repositories, closing review.