Bug 2252087

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6705191
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2252087-geteltorito/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06705191-geteltorito/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/geteltorito
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

I see. I have 2 weeks until a review is needed. I filed an unretirement request <https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11813>.

I mistaken a year. This review is required.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

I'm still interested in this review.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.

  --> Has been retired; review is for unretirement.
      Not an issue here.

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/besser82/fedora/review/2252087-geteltorito/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

  --> Upstream url has changed; url for Source0, too  Please fix.
      New url: https://github.com/rainer042/geteltorito


===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No
     copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License,
     Version 2", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/besser82/fedora/review/2252087-geteltorito/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: 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]: 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]: 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 725 bytes in 1 files.
[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).
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[!]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: geteltorito-0.6-16.fc42.noarch.rpm
          geteltorito-0.6-16.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpq2oh67iq')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

geteltorito.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geteltorito
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1

geteltorito.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geteltorito
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~krienke/ftp/noarch/geteltorito/geteltorito-0.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA512) this package     : c9823b8dffaf98d08383606aa21971605a001880bf7abfe614be4380963237ab55f0fcaeb6be393a3902b5d1dc43ce283ca16ef40ea142b2b2d825d3467e31e9
  CHECKSUM(SHA512) upstream package : dec0900f2109660cf1fbb07d49c583a4f74874b62917317045774e7a9e862cccb15b5cc81a5bb4bb886f0b3cdff57744f36c2ecf3dd53cbfc9bc3ffb35ab8a53
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
geteltorito (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/perl
    perl(Getopt::Std)



Provides
--------
geteltorito:
    geteltorito



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -k sha512 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2252087
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, C/C++, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

===== Solution =====

Package nit approved!

Please fix the urls as outlined above; things are fine then.

Thanks for the review. I asked upstream for geteltorito.bash <https://github.com/rainer042/geteltorito/issues/2>. It will be probably some kind of GPL, but I'd like to know before uploading it to dist-git.

Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/geteltorito/geteltorito.spec
SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/geteltorito/geteltorito-0.6%5e20250116gacaafb8-1.fc42.src.rpm

Upstream has changed a license to GPL-3.0-only and is not sure about a license of geteltorito.bash file. Until resolved, I removed that file from the source archive.

Created attachment 2066240 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6705191 to 8520116

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8520116
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2252087-geteltorito/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08520116-geteltorito/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/geteltorito
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

I'm still interested in the review.