Bug 2229316

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6243655
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229316-tecla/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06243655-tecla/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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.
- The LICENSE file says GPL 3 or later, but the License field is GPL-2.0-or-later (the source files seem to say 2.0 or later, but this probably needs a more thorough check)

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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 8548 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[!]: %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:
[!]: 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: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tecla-45~alpha-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          tecla-debuginfo-45~alpha-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          tecla-debugsource-45~alpha-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          tecla-45~alpha-1.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/tmpx2mcbznn')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

tecla.src: W: strange-permission tecla.spec 600
tecla.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tecla
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: tecla-debuginfo-45~alpha-1.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/tmpvakf_8zl')]
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/python3.12/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: 3

tecla.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tecla
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://download.gnome.org/sources/tecla/45/tecla-45.alpha.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 765f7a643e5a1daa9def2c0c83df3c651ae4bde05533d64ee1559ebb3c4e8ebd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 765f7a643e5a1daa9def2c0c83df3c651ae4bde05533d64ee1559ebb3c4e8ebd


Requires
--------
tecla (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.6.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

tecla-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

tecla-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
tecla:
    application()
    application(org.gnome.Tecla.desktop)
    tecla
    tecla(x86-64)

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

tecla-debugsource:
    tecla-debugsource
    tecla-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/david/checkout/rpms/2229316-tecla/srpm/tecla.spec	2023-08-07 12:53:41.308090451 +0100
+++ /home/david/checkout/rpms/2229316-tecla/srpm-unpacked/tecla.spec	2023-08-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%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
+
 %global tarball_version %%(echo %{version} | tr '~' '.')
 
@@ -46,3 +56,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Fri Aug 04 2023 Kalev Lember <klember> - 45~alpha-1
+- Initial Fedora packaging


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2229316
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, fonts, PHP, Python, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to David King from comment #2)
> - The LICENSE file says GPL 3 or later, but the License field is
> GPL-2.0-or-later (the source files seem to say 2.0 or later, but this
> probably needs a more thorough check)

Already a bug for this, it seems: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/tecla/-/issues/5

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

Thanks, I went ahead and added desktop-file-validate and %meson_test to the check section. There are no meson tests defined, but that's fine I think and we'll just end up running them if someone adds them upstream in the future :)


> > - The LICENSE file says GPL 3 or later, but the License field is
> > GPL-2.0-or-later (the source files seem to say 2.0 or later, but this
> > probably needs a more thorough check)
> 
> Already a bug for this, it seems:
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/tecla/-/issues/5

I'll keep an eye on this and update the package if needed, but I think meanwhile we can go with what the license headers in sources say.


Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/tecla.spec
SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/tecla-45~alpha-2.fc39.src.rpm

Created attachment 1982117 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6243655 to 6250001

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6250001
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229316-tecla/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06250001-tecla/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Works for me - thank you!

Excellent, thanks David!

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

Package imported and build under way.