Bug 2151289

Correct URLs follow

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedora-37-x86_64/05073138-numberstation/numberstation-1.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

The source archive contains LICENSE file, but the spec does not use that file with %license LICENSE macro. That is required and blocker for the review.

%files must contain also:
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}

Because it is GUI application, it should have .desktop file validated in %check section [1].

[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.


===== 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.
[!]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 16
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2151289-numberstation/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/numberstation,
     /usr/share/numberstation/numberstation
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/numberstation,
     /usr/share/numberstation/numberstation,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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 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: numberstation-1.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          numberstation-1.2.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
============================================================= rpmlint session starts =============================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9f13mhl3')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

numberstation.spec:23: W: setup-not-quiet
numberstation.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary numberstation
numberstation.x86_64: E: no-binary
numberstation.src: W: invalid-license GPLv3-or-later
numberstation.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3-or-later
numberstation.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy
============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==============================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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: 1

numberstation.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary numberstation
numberstation.x86_64: E: no-binary
numberstation.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3-or-later
numberstation.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://git.sr.ht/~martijnbraam/numberstation/archive/1.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2c71368f4465ef439b0807dcea5ad246bb4ea5fc10fa9a1369d82f4e2a586f97
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c71368f4465ef439b0807dcea5ad246bb4ea5fc10fa9a1369d82f4e2a586f97


Requires
--------
numberstation (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    libhandy
    python3-keyring
    python3-pyotp



Provides
--------
numberstation:
    application()
    application(org.postmarketos.Numberstation.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.postmarketos.Numberstation.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/otpauth)
    numberstation
    numberstation(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2151289
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Python, R, Haskell, Perl, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the review!

The issues are now fixed and the package can be reviewed again.

However, I'm not sure about the rpmlint error "E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy". If it is not explicitly required then the package does not automatically require it, which could cause issues if user has not yet installed a package which requires it (or installed it explicitly)? So should I ignore the error or remove the explicit dependency or something else?

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedora-37-x86_64/05252523-numberstation/numberstation-1.2.0-2.fc37.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5252620
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2151289-numberstation/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05252620-numberstation/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

Missed the sub-directory under the "%{_datadir}/%{name}" so pushed once more.

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedora-37-x86_64/05255445-numberstation/numberstation-1.2.0-3.fc37.src.rpm

Created attachment 1939210 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5252620 to 5255606

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5255606
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2151289-numberstation/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05255606-numberstation/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

It seems okay now, passing the review.

Please follow steps described in:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/

to get sponsored.

1. Why %global debug_package %{nil} ?

2. Change
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}.gresource
%{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}/*.py

to

%{_datadir}/%{name}

3. Add
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme

4. Add to %check section:
	
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/org.postmarketos.Numberstation.appdata.xml
And BuildRequires: libappstream-glib

5. Change %setup -n %{name}-%{version}
to %autosetup

Thanks for the review!

> 1. Why %global debug_package %{nil} ?

No reason, removed it.

> 2. Change

I'm not sure about what you exactly want, could you elaborate?

> 4. Add to %check section:

The appstream-data validation fails so included a patch fixing it and sent the patch to the upstream.

> 3. Add
> 5. Change %setup -n %{name}-%{version}

Added.

1. You must explay why explicitly disable debuginfo
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_debuginfo_packages

If it is because package noarch than it is not needed. RPM will do it himself.

2. No need to describe each file and directory at %files section. You can simplify this and use only one string with top directory. All files and subdirectories in it will be added automatically.

4. Reporting to upstream good but until change not accepted by upstream you must use patch in sspec file and validate this xml.

> 1. You must explay why explicitly disable debuginfo

Thanks for the link, now I know how to use it properly.

> 2. No need to describe each file and directory at %files section ...

Okay, that's good to know :)

> 4. Reporting to upstream good but until change not accepted by upstream you must use patch in sspec file and validate this xml.

Yes the patch is included and validation enabled

Seems good now.

I will sponsor you. What is your FAS login?

Forgot to link latest SPRM:

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedora-37-x86_64/05414721-numberstation/numberstation-1.2.0-4.fc37.src.rpm

> I will sponsor you. What is your FAS login?

Thank you! It is: lihis

Created attachment 1942002 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5255606 to 5430141

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5430141
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2151289-numberstation/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05430141-numberstation/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

Done.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/numberstation

SCM repository created and committed the sources for rawhide. Bodhi update seemed to trigger automatically: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9449c4062f. Should I also create f38 branch and commit to there also?

Is there anything else that should be done before closing of this issue?

If you plan build and add to repos for other releases (f38, f37, f36, epel9...) you should request that branches.

You can close this ticket after rawhide build or after target release build.

Okay, thanks for the help! Closing as I target rawhide and f38 when it is branched.