Bug 2279272

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7419098
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279272-wlr-protocols/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07419098-wlr-protocols/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.

Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/wlr-protocols.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/wlr-protocols-0.0.0-1.20240126git2b8d433.fc39.src.rpm

Created attachment 2031747 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7419098 to 7421594

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7421594
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279272-wlr-protocols/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07421594-wlr-protocols/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.

I'll review it

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

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

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license (MIT) and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Historical Permission Notice and
     Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 11
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/petro/2279272-wlr-protocols/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pkgconfig
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format (%autochangelog).
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Not a GUI app.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 (%autorelease).
[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 0 bytes in 0 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.
     Please do in the meantime.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described. Not tested this but looks ok (just a XML files).
[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. No signature-file provided by upstream.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures. Arch-agnostic package.
[-]: %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]: 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 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: wlr-protocols-devel-0.0.0-1.20240126git2b8d433.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          wlr-protocols-0.0.0-1.20240126git2b8d433.fc41.src.rpm
================================================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts ===============================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0yg5d1j5')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

wlr-protocols.src: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', 'Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots')
wlr-protocols.src: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots')
wlr-protocols-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', 'Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots')
wlr-protocols-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots')
wlr-protocols-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
========================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==========================================================================================

 ^^^ The above rpmlint messages are false-positives.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 32, packages: 1

wlr-protocols-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', 'Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots')
wlr-protocols-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wlroots', '%description -l en_US wlroots -> roots')
wlr-protocols-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 


^^^ Likewise.

Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wlroots/wlr-protocols/-/archive/2b8d43325b7012cc3f9b55c08d26e50e42beac7d/wlr-protocols-2b8d43325b7012cc3f9b55c08d26e50e42beac7d.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 30c0a52e04ec0a8a53f3cf4d5685ef51f71a7115cde2f93c57675ceba389edb8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30c0a52e04ec0a8a53f3cf4d5685ef51f71a7115cde2f93c57675ceba389edb8


Requires
--------
wlr-protocols-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config



Provides
--------
wlr-protocols-devel:
    pkgconfig(wlr-protocols)
    wlr-protocols-devel
    wlr-protocols-devel(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2279272
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, R, Haskell, fonts, Python, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

==============

The package is APPROVED.

There are errors in this package that need to be fixed:

Spec review:

> # no debug information
> %global debug_package %{nil}

This should be dropped and "BuildArch: noarch" should be used instead.

> Version:        0.0.0
> Release:        %autorelease

This should use the modern snapshot versioning rather than the legacy version-in-release variant. The version is wrong too, since the pkgconfig file says it's "1.0".

Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

> %dir %{_datadir}/wlr-protocols
> %dir %{_datadir}/wlr-protocols/unstable
> %{_datadir}/wlr-protocols/unstable/*.xml

This should be simplified to "%{_datadir}/wlr-protocols/" (note the trailing slash)

Thanks for the review by you both.

> This should be dropped and "BuildArch: noarch" should be used instead.

Done.

> This should use the modern snapshot versioning rather than the legacy version-in-release variant. The version is wrong too, since the pkgconfig file says it's "1.0".
> Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

There is no tag version release on the upstream, so I use "Version: 0^%{date}git%{shortcommit}"

> When upstream has never chosen a version, you must use Version: 0.


> This should be simplified to "%{_datadir}/wlr-protocols/" (note the trailing slash)

Done.


Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/wlr-protocols.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/wlr-protocols-0%5e20240126git2b8d433-1.fc39.src.rpm

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wlr-protocols

FEDORA-2024-6482720dc9 (wlr-protocols-0^20240126git2b8d433-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6482720dc9

FEDORA-2024-6482720dc9 (wlr-protocols-0^20240126git2b8d433-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.