Bug 2215078

Issues:
=======
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: libjodycode : /usr/include/libjodycode.h
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
  present.
  Note: Package has .a files: libjodycode. Illegal package name:
  libjodycode. Does not provide -static: libjodycode.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries

libjodycode.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libjodycode.a
libjodycode.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libjodycode.h
libjodycode.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libjodycode.a
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s

a) Is there any possibility of avoiding packaging the static library file? If really necessary, create a -static package to store the static lib.

b) put the header file into -devel subpackage.

c) 

> %forgesetup
> %patch -P 0 -p1

the two lines could be replaced by
```
%forgeautosetup -p1
```

d)
> Patch0:         libjodycode-2.0.1-Makefile.patch

add comment above the patch line to explain.
ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

I agree about the static library.  I was only including it because it was built anyway, but I see no reason for it.  I have dropped it.  I also made the other changes you pointed out.  Round 2:

Spec: https://dcantrell.fedorapeople.org/libjodycode/libjodycode.spec
SRPM: https://dcantrell.fedorapeople.org/libjodycode/libjodycode-2.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm

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

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



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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Public
     domain", "*No copyright* MIT License". 19 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/libjodycode/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libjodycode-2.0.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libjodycode-devel-2.0.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libjodycode-debuginfo-2.0.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libjodycode-debugsource-2.0.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libjodycode-2.0.1-2.fc39.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvlnmhrd5')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

libjodycode.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: libjodycode-2.0.1-Makefile.patch
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libjodycode-debuginfo-2.0.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpnoefnf3p')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 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: 4

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jbruchon/libjodycode/archive/v2.0.1/libjodycode-2.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1fdd106ab4d90aa1c0a2546299144f62d18b90acada2d6ee25370c4907048927
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1fdd106ab4d90aa1c0a2546299144f62d18b90acada2d6ee25370c4907048927


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

libjodycode-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libjodycode(x86-64)
    libjodycode.so.2()(64bit)

libjodycode-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libjodycode-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libjodycode:
    libjodycode
    libjodycode(x86-64)
    libjodycode.so.2()(64bit)

libjodycode-devel:
    libjodycode-devel
    libjodycode-devel(x86-64)

libjodycode-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libjodycode-debuginfo
    libjodycode-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libjodycode.so.2.0.1-2.0.1-2.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libjodycode-debugsource:
    libjodycode-debugsource
    libjodycode-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name libjodycode --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

---

A little strange with the issue of patch-not-applied, the overall thing looks good for me anyway.

Approved.

May I ask you to review one of my package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214296

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

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102384409