Bug 2125956

The spec file should have a .spec extension and the rpm should be a src.rpm.  Both should be directly downloadable using curl/wget.  It would also be helpful if you could place a build on Copr or Koji.

> The spec file should have a .spec extension and the rpm should be a src.rpm.

It was mangled by the paste software: I don't mined uploading them somewhere else if it is more comfortable, but I don't think it block the review process.

>  Both should be directly downloadable using curl/wget.

They are.

> It would also be helpful if you could place a build on Copr or Koji.

Sure: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91939941

Note: QBE only supports x86_64 and aarch64 (and risc) so I'll have to add an ExcludeArch entry to the specfile.

If you could upload somewhere else so that the extensions do not get mangled, that would be really great as it makes it easier to run fedora-review. fnux.fedorapeople.org is one choice, see https://fedorapeople.org/

Spec URL: https://fnux.fedorapeople.org/qbe.spec
SRPM URL: https://fnux.fedorapeople.org/qbe-1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91965168

*** Bug 2125955 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Thanks.

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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 115 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/qbe/2125956-qbe/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[?]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: qbe (description)
[-]: 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 51200 bytes in 6 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]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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.


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


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



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


Source checksums
----------------
https://c9x.me/compile//release/qbe-1.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 257ef3727c462795f8e599771f18272b772beb854a
acab97e0fda70c13745e0c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 257ef3727c462795f8e599771f18272b772beb854a
acab97e0fda70c13745e0c


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

qbe-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

qbe-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
qbe:
    qbe
    qbe(x86-64)

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

qbe-debugsource:
    qbe-debugsource
    qbe-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/qbe/2125956-qbe/srpm/qbe.spec
2022-09-14 05:41:38.741227761 +0300
+++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/qbe/2125956-qbe/srpm-unpacked/
qbe.spec	2022-09-13 11:23:28.000000000 +0300
@@ -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
+
 Name:           qbe
 Version:        1.0
@@ -42,3 +51,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Tue Sep 13 2022 John Doe <packager> 1.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes


Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2125956
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Python,
 R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

$ rpmlint qbe-1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

qbe.src: W: strange-permission qbe.spec 600
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 


Comments:
a) Update changelog appropriately when submitting
b) The files in doc abi.txt  il.txt  llvm.txt  rv64.txt  win.txt seem to have their timestamps changed, not sure if there is any way to avoid this though
c) Check the permissions for qbe.spec would expect 664

Package approved

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

Many thanks! I'll make it so the timestamps are preserved. The other two issues are only transient.