Bug 2237768

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6379971
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2237768-golly/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06379971-golly/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.

Some first thoughts while reading the spec file:

> Requires:       golly-data

Is it really intended that this requirement is unversioned? If not, I would recommend "golly-data = %{version}-%{release}" instead.

Why is the golly-devel subpackage not noarch, too? It seems to populate the same paths like golly-data does. If golly-devel contains versioned content, I recommend to switch from "%{name} = %{version}-%{release}" to "%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". And if it's unversioned, I think "BuildArch: noarch" would make more sense.

Is it intended that only golly-data can be installed (without having golly itself installed)? Depending on how strong the dependency is (just a wild guess), it also could be e.g. "Recommends: golly-data" in the main package and "Requires: golly" in the subpackage.

> desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop

I would recommend to move this into %check, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage (it seems to be more a check rather than an installation command).

> URL:        http://golly.sourceforge.net/

You could switch the URI scheme to HTTPS.

> Source0:    https://sourceforge.net/projects/%{name}/files/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{version}-src.tar.gz

As per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_sourceforge_net, the following URL is preferred by Fedora:

Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-src.tar.gz

> # The license for the code is GPLv2+ and for the included python parts Python-2.0.1
> #    see  /usr/share/licenses/golly/License.html
> # The license for the Life Lexicon is CC-BY-SA
> #    see /usr/share/licenses/golly/lex.htm from https://conwaylife.com/ref/lexicon/lex_home.htm
> License:    GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1 AND CC-BY-SA-3.0

I would use SPDX also in the comments. But do I get it correctly, that the Life Lexicon is only packaged with golly-data, not with golly and/or golly-devel? If so, I would go for something like this (especially as CC-BY-SA-3.0 is only allowed at Fedora as content license):

# The license for the code is GPL-2.0-or-later and for the included python parts Python-2.0.1
#    see  /usr/share/licenses/golly/License.html
# The license for the Life Lexicon (/usr/share/golly/Help/Lexicon/ in golly-data) is CC-BY-SA-3.0
#    see /usr/share/licenses/golly/lex.htm from https://conwaylife.com/ref/lexicon/lex_home.htm
License:    GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1
[…]

%package data
[…]
License:    GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1 AND CC-BY-SA-3.0
[…]

Thank you very much for the review.

(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #2)
> Some first thoughts while reading the spec file:
> 
> > Requires:       golly-data
> 
> Is it really intended that this requirement is unversioned? If not, I would
> recommend "golly-data = %{version}-%{release}" instead.
> 
> Why is the golly-devel subpackage not noarch, too? It seems to populate the
> same paths like golly-data does. If golly-devel contains versioned content,
> I recommend to switch from "%{name} = %{version}-%{release}" to
> "%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}". And if it's unversioned, I think
> "BuildArch: noarch" would make more sense.

Yes, both subpackages can be noarch. Since their content is provided by the upstream tarball, I think it would be best to make the dependencies fully versioned.

> Is it intended that only golly-data can be installed (without having golly
> itself installed)? Depending on how strong the dependency is (just a wild
> guess), it also could be e.g. "Recommends: golly-data" in the main package
> and "Requires: golly" in the subpackage.

Agreed. Installing just a subpackage like -devel or -data without the main package is no real use case.

Although the main package would work without the -data package with less features and probably some broken menu entries, I don't think it is intended to run without it. The main reason for splitting off the -data was that larger data should go into a separate subpackage according to the packaging guidelines.

In that case, would it be OK that -data would require the main package (fully versioned) and the other way around as well? Then they both would be always installed (and updated) at the same time.

For now I used Recommends: (versioned) in the provided spec file.

> > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
> 
> I would recommend to move this into %check,
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_desktop_file_install_usage (it seems to be more a check rather than an
> installation command).

Done. The guidelines seem to allow both, but I agree that semantically it would be rather a check task and not an install task.

> 
> > URL:        http://golly.sourceforge.net/
> 
> You could switch the URI scheme to HTTPS.

Done.

(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #3)
> > Source0:    https://sourceforge.net/projects/%{name}/files/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{version}-src.tar.gz
> 
> As per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
> #_sourceforge_net, the following URL is preferred by Fedora:
> 
> Source0:
> https://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-src.tar.gz

Corrected.

> > # The license for the code is GPLv2+ and for the included python parts Python-2.0.1
> > #    see  /usr/share/licenses/golly/License.html
> > # The license for the Life Lexicon is CC-BY-SA
> > #    see /usr/share/licenses/golly/lex.htm from https://conwaylife.com/ref/lexicon/lex_home.htm
> > License:    GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1 AND CC-BY-SA-3.0
> 
> I would use SPDX also in the comments. But do I get it correctly, that the
> Life Lexicon is only packaged with golly-data, not with golly and/or
> golly-devel? If so, I would go for something like this (especially as
> CC-BY-SA-3.0 is only allowed at Fedora as content license):
> 
> # The license for the code is GPL-2.0-or-later and for the included python
> parts Python-2.0.1
> #    see  /usr/share/licenses/golly/License.html
> # The license for the Life Lexicon (/usr/share/golly/Help/Lexicon/ in
> golly-data) is CC-BY-SA-3.0
> #    see /usr/share/licenses/golly/lex.htm from
> https://conwaylife.com/ref/lexicon/lex_home.htm
> License:    GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1
> […]
> 
> %package data
> […]
> License:    GPL-2.0-or-later AND Python-2.0.1 AND CC-BY-SA-3.0
> […]

Done. I moved the license files accordingly as well.

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~chkr/review/golly.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~chkr/review/golly-4.2-2.fc40.src.rpm

I am sorry, I overlooked one point before:

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/golly/Rules

-devel fills /usr/share/golly/Rules, but depends on the main package,
which only recommends the -data package, which could finally lead to
a not owned directory. "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/Rules" in the -devel
package could be a practical solution (or add a dependency in -devel
to -data as an alternative).



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

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


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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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", "MIT License", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 2", "The Perl 5 License", "zlib License The
     Unlicense", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0", "*No
     copyright* Public domain", "zlib License". 1186 files have unknown
     license
     -> Files with other licenses as mentioned in the spec file do not seem
        to end up in the binary package(s), just build-time and/or unused.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/golly/Rules
[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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: 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 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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 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

Perl:
[-]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
     Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
     echo $version)) missing?

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

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golly-
     data, golly-devel
     -> %{?_isa} is not possible due to (correct) noarch
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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 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: golly-4.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          golly-data-4.2-2.fc38.noarch.rpm
          golly-devel-4.2-2.fc38.noarch.rpm
          golly-debuginfo-4.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          golly-debugsource-4.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          golly-4.2-2.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/tmprp9e1_7q')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bgolly
golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary golly
golly-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
golly-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
golly-data.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/golly-data/lex.htm /usr/share/golly/Help/Lexicon/lex.htm
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: golly-debuginfo-4.2-2.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/tmpmpqgk0a5')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 5

golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bgolly
golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary golly
golly-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
golly-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
golly-data.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/golly-data/lex.htm /usr/share/golly/Help/Lexicon/lex.htm
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/golly/golly-4.2-src.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 569128a923da64c3ff0062186406e4e51fdff02aeabf1f292983753bd065e95d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 569128a923da64c3ff0062186406e4e51fdff02aeabf1f292983753bd065e95d


Requires
--------
golly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libGL.so.1()(64bit)
    libSDL2-2.0.so.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)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit)
    liblua-5.4.so()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_baseu_net-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_baseu_net-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

golly-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    golly

golly-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    golly

golly-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

golly-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
golly:
    application()
    application(golly.desktop)
    golly
    golly(x86-64)

golly-data:
    golly-data

golly-devel:
    golly-devel

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

golly-debugsource:
    golly-debugsource
    golly-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 golly --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Perl, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #5)
> I am sorry, I overlooked one point before:
> 
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/golly/Rules
> 
> -devel fills /usr/share/golly/Rules, but depends on the main package,
> which only recommends the -data package, which could finally lead to
> a not owned directory. "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/Rules" in the -devel
> package could be a practical solution (or add a dependency in -devel
> to -data as an alternative).

Would the following alternative work as well?

- let the main package own /usr/share/golly/Rules
- since both subpackages require the main package, there would be no situation where that directory would be unowned
- it avoids that a directory would be owned by two packages (I didn't find any statement in the guidelines which forbids it explicitly, but it is rarely used and I would like to avoid it)

Next version of the package contains the following changes:
- avoid unowned packages by letting the main package own /usr/share/golly/Rules
- added missing comment about SPDX migration
- remove trailing white-space

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~chkr/review/golly.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~chkr/review/golly-4.2-3.fc40.src.rpm

Created attachment 1992320 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6379971 to 6494787

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6494787
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2237768-golly/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06494787-golly/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.

Yes, I'm fine with your suggested alternative, too.

-> APPROVED.

FEDORA-2023-edbcee57ca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-edbcee57ca

FEDORA-2023-2db0823824 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2db0823824

FEDORA-2023-78477ee16c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-78477ee16c

FEDORA-2023-2db0823824 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-2db0823824 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2db0823824

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-edbcee57ca has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-edbcee57ca \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-edbcee57ca

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-78477ee16c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-78477ee16c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-78477ee16c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-78477ee16c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-2db0823824 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-edbcee57ca has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.