Bug 2337576

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8511670
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2337576-sgx-rpm-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08511670-sgx-rpm-macros/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.

That's a simple one! I'll review it.

Please, consider adding licensing info in a separate file. Not a blocker though.
OK, I don't see any issues so here is my formal

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 and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[-]: The source package does not include the text of the license(s) in its
     own file.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No separate development files.
[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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s).
[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 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]: 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.
     See my note above.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[?]: I guess the latest version is packaged since you're upstream.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish
     signatures).
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is not necessary.
[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]: 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: sgx-rpm-macros-1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          sgx-rpm-macros-1-1.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/tmpqp1t3gs2')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

sgx-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
sgx-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
sgx-rpm-macros.src: W: no-url-tag
sgx-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
sgx-rpm-macros.spec: W: no-%prep-section
sgx-rpm-macros.spec: W: no-%build-section
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 


^^^ These can be ignored.

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

sgx-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
sgx-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag
sgx-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Requires
--------
sgx-rpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
sgx-rpm-macros:
    rpm_macro(sgx_includedir)
    rpm_macro(sgx_libdir)
    rpm_macro(sgx_prefix)
    rpm_macro(sgx_triplet)
    sgx-rpm-macros



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2337576
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, R, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH



This package is

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

> Please, consider adding licensing info in a separate file. Not a blocker though.

Thank you, I will add that after importing.

FEDORA-2025-39ec87bb33 (sgx-rpm-macros-1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-39ec87bb33

FEDORA-2025-39ec87bb33 (sgx-rpm-macros-1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.