Bug 2232507

$ rpmlint rpmbuild/*/passim*
=========================================================================== 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: 7
passim-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
============================================ 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===========================================

COPR build here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rhughes/fwupd/build/6311155/

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6311158
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2232507-passim/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06311158-passim/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.

Hey Benson -- any problems you spotted?

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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/passim/2232507-passim/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/passim, /usr/include/passim-1
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/passim,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services,
     /usr/share/dbus-1/system.d, /usr/share/gir-1.0, /usr/include/passim-1,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
     /usr/share/dbus-1
[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.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[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.
[ ]: 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 17225 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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
     Note: Systemd service file(s) in passim
[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.
[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.
[x]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: 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: passim-0.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          passim-devel-0.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          passim-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          passim-debugsource-0.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          passim-0.1.0-1.fc38.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/tmpczqu698l')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

passim-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
============= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.9 s =============




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: passim-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc38.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/tmpwht6nqx1')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.0 s =============





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
============================ 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

passim-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/hughsie/passim/releases/download/0.1.0/passim-0.1.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 769b64826b6dcf0ea6d3054e7892d608715c76435df3492a7a3e14e67966d8cb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 769b64826b6dcf0ea6d3054e7892d608715c76435df3492a7a3e14e67966d8cb


Requires
--------
passim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(passim)
    glib2(x86-64)
    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)
    libgnutls.so.30()(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_6_0)(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpassim.so.1()(64bit)
    libpassim.so.1(LIBPASSIM_0.1.0)(64bit)
    libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd

passim-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libpassim.so.1()(64bit)
    passim(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(gio-2.0)
    pkgconfig(gio-unix-2.0)

passim-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

passim-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
passim:
    config(passim)
    libpassim.so.1()(64bit)
    libpassim.so.1(LIBPASSIM_0.1.0)(64bit)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.freedesktop.Passim.metainfo.xml)
    passim
    passim(x86-64)

passim-devel:
    passim-devel
    passim-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(passim)

passim-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libpassim.so.1.0.0-0.1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    passim-debuginfo
    passim-debuginfo(x86-64)

passim-debugsource:
    passim-debugsource
    passim-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2232507 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, PHP, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ruby, R, fonts, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Does not build on Fedora 37, but this is not essential.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/fedora-review/fedora-review-2232507-passim/build/6311158/
b) Consider adding:
%dir %{_includedir}/passim-1/
%dir %{_datadir}/passim/
to ensure these directories are owned by the package
c) Following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage
should there be a line:
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml

> a) Does not build on Fedora 37, but this is not essential.

Agree; I've been quite aggressive with BRs and not including compat code for the old libsoup.

> b) Consider adding:
> %dir %{_includedir}/passim-1/
> %dir %{_datadir}/passim/
> to ensure these directories are owned by the package

Good catch, thanks. Added -- new spec and srpm uploaded in the same place.

> c) Following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage
> should there be a line:
> appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml

TIL; thanks! Added.

Richard

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 1984962 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6311158 to 6340315

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6340315
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2232507-passim/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06340315-passim/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.

Approved. 

You might consider using
%{_mandir}/man1/passim.1*
instead of
%{_mandir}/man1/*

and
%{_datadir}/passim/*.ico
%{_datadir}/passim/*.css
instead of
%{_datadir}/passim/*

Review of one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218044
would be appreciated if time and expertise allow

The systemd BRs and Requires don't look right, see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd

i.e. this is missing:
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros

The manual "Requires(pre/post/postun): systemd" are also outdated:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_dependencies_on_the_systemd_package

they should either be replaced with "%{?systemd_requires}"
or dropped entirely, since they are not required for the %post, %pre, and %postun scriptlets to work.

> You might consider using

I've fixed both issues, thanks.

> i.e. this is missing:
> BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros

Added

> The manual "Requires(pre/post/postun): systemd" are also outdated

Removed, thanks. I've refreshed the .spec and .src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

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

Package built, thanks all!