Bug 2275294

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

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file md_LICENSE.html is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


===== 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:
[ ]: 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", "Kevlin Henney License and/or Public
     domain", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Kevlin Henney
     License and/or MIT License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "Kevlin Henney License". 520 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/mruby
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: mruby-static.
[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 4308 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mruby-
     devel , mruby-static
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define soversion %(echo
     '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.')
[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
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10260480 bytes in /usr/share mruby-
     doc-3.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm:10229760
     See:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mruby/mruby/archive/refs/tags/3.3.0.tar.gz#/mruby-3.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 53088367e3d7657eb722ddfacb938f74aed1f8538b3717fe0b6eb8f58402af65
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53088367e3d7657eb722ddfacb938f74aed1f8538b3717fe0b6eb8f58402af65


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

mruby-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libmruby.so.3.3()(64bit)

mruby-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/sh
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

mruby-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    js-jquery

mruby-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

mruby-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
mruby:
    libmruby.so.3.3()(64bit)
    mruby
    mruby(x86-64)

mruby-devel:
    mruby-devel
    mruby-devel(x86-64)

mruby-static:
    mruby-static
    mruby-static(x86-64)

mruby-doc:
    mruby-doc
    mruby-doc(x86-64)

mruby-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libmruby.so.3.3-3.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    mruby-debuginfo
    mruby-debuginfo(x86-64)

mruby-debugsource:
    mruby-debugsource
    mruby-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2275294
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Python, Java, Ocaml, Perl, R, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125214237
b) There are a number of other license files:
*No copyright* Public domain
----------------------------
mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-bigint/README-fgmp.md
mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/src/fmt_fp.c
mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/src/readfloat.c

GNU General Public License v3.0 or later
----------------------------------------
mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-compiler/core/y.tab.c

Kevlin Henney License
---------------------
mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-dir/src/Win/dirent.c

Kevlin Henney License and/or MIT License
----------------------------------------
mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-dir/README.md

Kevlin Henney License and/or Public domain
------------------------------------------
mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/LEGAL

c) Consider changing 
%{_docdir}/%{name}/html
to
%dir %{_docdir}/%{name}
%{_docdir}/%{name}/html
or
%{_docdir}/%{name}/

d) Static and devel packages should require main package

e) Please change
%define soversion %(echo '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.')
to
%global soversion %(echo '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.')

Changed .spec is available at https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/mruby/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08280108-mruby/mruby.spec
b)
  * Added license breakdown.
  * Added Public Domain and GPL 3 to license listing.
  * Removed code licensed under HPND-Kevlin-Henney (used only on Windows).
c) Done.
d) -devel package Requires main package via Requires on a versioned .so. Added explicit Requires of the -static subpackage to -devel subpackage.
e) Done.

Other changes:
* Using %autorelease, %autochangelog and %autosetup.
* Added BuildRequires:  web-assets-devel and using %{_webassetdir} instead of explicit paths.
* Using `mv -T --update=none` to allow renaming directory to itself, allows building on i386.

Hi, can you please re-review this?

Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file md_LICENSE.html is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
  Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT AND Public Domain AND GPL-3.0-or-
  later'.
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1


===== 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", "Kevlin Henney License and/or Public
     domain", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Kevlin Henney
     License and/or MIT License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later". 520 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/srpm-unpacked/review-
     mruby/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: mruby-static.
[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 4308 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mruby-
     devel , mruby-static
[ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mruby/mruby/archive/refs/tags/3.3.0.tar.gz#/mruby-3.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 53088367e3d7657eb722ddfacb938f74aed1f8538b3717fe0b6eb8f58402af65
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53088367e3d7657eb722ddfacb938f74aed1f8538b3717fe0b6eb8f58402af65


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

mruby-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libmruby.so.3.3.0()(64bit)

mruby-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/sh
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    mruby-devel(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

mruby-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    js-jquery

mruby-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

mruby-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
mruby:
    libmruby.so.3.3.0()(64bit)
    mruby
    mruby(x86-64)

mruby-devel:
    mruby-devel
    mruby-devel(x86-64)

mruby-static:
    mruby-static
    mruby-static(x86-64)

mruby-doc:
    mruby-doc

mruby-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libmruby.so.3.3.0-3.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    mruby-debuginfo
    mruby-debuginfo(x86-64)

mruby-debugsource:
    mruby-debugsource
    mruby-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/srpm-unpacked/mruby.spec  2024-11-19 16:21:01.000000000 +0300
+++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/srpm-unpacked/review-mruby/srpm-unpacked/mruby.spec      2024-12-04 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## 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 soversion %(echo '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.')
 
@@ -112,3 +122,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Wed Dec 04 2024 John Doe <packager> - 3.3.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


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

Comments:
a) Thanks for the reminder, sorry for the delay.
b) Consider changing
Source0:        https://github.com/mruby/mruby/archive/refs/tags/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
to
Source:         https://github.com/mruby/mruby/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
To match what is in the packaging guidelines.
c) For easy use of mrbc, should the devel and static packages be combined with the main package? mrbc cannot
be used without the development headers and it is expected that compiler packages will have development
headers and static libraries. Alternatively mrbc perhaps could be put in the devel package or in a separate
package?
d) In the license listing change
Public Domain
to
LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain 
see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

New .spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/mruby/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08346552-mruby/mruby.spec
New .srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/mruby/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08346552-mruby/mruby-3.3.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

b) Done.
d) Done.
Added `Requires:       %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}` to the -devel subpackage.

c) I think there is a misunderstanding. See https://mruby.org/docs/articles/executing-ruby-code-with-mruby.html
The binaries operate on Ruby code and they do not require C headers. Think of it like Lua, it has an interpreter and separate -devel package for C headers. mruby additionally has a bytecode compiler (mrbc).
I used a slightly different approach than the upstream build which builds the binaries with statically linked libmruby.a. I build the binaries and link them to a custom-built libmruby.so which is installed in the same package as the binaries.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8346553
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2275294-mruby/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08346553-mruby/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file md_LICENSE.html is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.

Checking c.

This seems ok. Can you send a patch upstream to enable building of a shared library?  Would want
to ensure that sonames are consistent.

I did open a discussion about it: https://github.com/mruby/mruby/issues/6239
And I tried using their suggestion but for some reason switched away from it.

My impression is that the dynamic library approach is not fully integrated in their build and as far as I remember, they do not build with sonames, so that the Fedora package has to add its own flags anyway.

Commented on the discussion, it would be best to at least have the soname upstream. Packaging
guidelines suggest using 0 as the first part of the soname if upstream is not willing to add
a soname at present.

May also want to add bison and gperf as build dependencies.

Hi, adding those 2 dependencies is a simple fix.
Regarding sonames: the best solution would be to wait for upstream. I considered taking a look at doing it myself, but I currently do not have the energy to do so. Shall we wait for the upstream fix?