Bug 2338778

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8544116
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338778-blogc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08544116-blogc/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.

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

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

===== Issues =====

- Since one file is under an MIT license, the text of that license is also
  required,
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text.

  I opened an upstream PR to amend the upstream LICENSE file. Since the
  copyright notices are included in the SPDX fields in the source file header,
  and the license text is taken from the URL cited in the source file, it
  should be safe enough to patch this in downstream while awaiting upstream
  review.

- The format of

    VCS:     https://github.com/blogc/blogc

  is not consistent with the documentation at

    https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/tags.html

  which says it should be

    (Public) upstream source code VCS location. Format <vcs>:<address> with
    <vcs> being the VCS command used (e.g. git, svn, hg, …) and <address> being
    the location of the repository as used by the VCS tool to clone/checkout
    the repository (e.g. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm.git).

  Therefore, please change this to

    VCS:     git:https://github.com/blogc/blogc.git

- The getsource.sh script does not work. Change

    tar -cvf blogc

  to

    tar -cvf blogc.tar blogc

- I was going to question the use of a "getsource.sh" script, as you normally
  don’t need one to package a git snapshot from GitHub. You would be able to
  change

    Source0: blogc.tar.gz
    # Need Git files for build version from a commit
    Source1: getsource.sh

  to

    Source:  https://github.com/blogc/blogc/archive/%{commit}/blogc-%{commit}.tar.gz

  and

    %autosetup  -n blogc -p 1

  to

    %autosetup  -n blogc-%{commit} -p 1

  or maybe something like

    %autosetup  -n blogc-%{commit} -p 1 -S git
    git tag v%{version}

  if this weren’t a snapshot…

  but then I saw how the version number actually includes the number of git
  commits since the last release tag in the version number ("29"):

    0.20.1.29-b1ae

  This is hard to figure out by hand and hard-code, and it absolutely requires
  the real upstream .git directory to do it automatically.

  Unfortunately, this means the source archive technically includes not just
  everything in a git checkout, but everything that has *ever* been committed
  to the upstream git repository, which is probably fine but really expands the
  scope of review.

  I think what you’re doing is probably the best you can do while still
  generating the right version number, but please consider changing

    git clone https://github.com/blogc/blogc

  in getsource.sh to

    git clone https://github.com/blogc/blogc --shallow-since=2021-01-01

  which still goes back far enough to catch the last release tag on 2021-01-02,
  without including all of the project’s ancient history.

- Please consider encouraging upstream to make a new release.

- While the changelog is correctly formatted, I don’t think it makes sense to
  include changelog entries from the upstream spec file, before the package was
  included in Fedora.

- As demonstrated in

    https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package

  the dependencies among subpackages of the same RPM should be arch-specific.

    Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
    Requires: %{name}-make = %{version}-%{release}
    Requires: %{name}-runserver = %{version}-%{release}

  (in various places) should become, respectively:

    Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
    Requires: %{name}-make%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
    Requires: %{name}-runserver%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

- While this isn’t strictly required, it can be nicer to write

    # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17
    Patch:   getaddrinfo.patch

  as

    # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17
    Patch:   https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17.patch

  or, if you want to preserve the patch name,

    # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17
    Patch:   https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17.patch#/getaddrinfo.patch

- Since this will be a new leaf package, consider adding:

    # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
    ExcludeArch:    %{ix86}

  This package builds fine on i686, but there is no value in building it there.

- I was able to determine experimentally that 

    BuildRequires: git

  can and should be replaced with

    BuildRequires: git-core

  Consider trying to determine if 

    Requires: git

  can be replaced with

    Requires: git-core

  too, based on the particular git commands that are actually used.

  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ChangeToGitCore

===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License".
     15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/fedora/review/2338778-blogc/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.

     src/common/utf8.c is based on other work, but is not a bundled library

[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

     Upstream says:

       Running the `blogc-git-receiver` tool requires:
       
       - git, make and tar  

     I’m taking that for granted. As noted in Issues, consider trying to
     evaluate whether full git is needed, or just git-core.

[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

     (except as otherwise mentioned)

[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).
[!]: 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.

     The “main” license text is present, but the MIT text for src/common/utf8.c
     is not. See Issues.

[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 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 1917 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.

     The “main” license text is present, but the MIT text for src/common/utf8.c
     is not. See Issues.

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in blogc-
     git-receiver , blogc-make , blogc-runserver

     These dependencies need to be arch-specific; see Issues.

[x]: Package functions as described.

     (Tests pass.)

[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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128250709

[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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-git-receiver-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-make-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-runserver-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp3xaenllt')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

blogc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: blogc.tar.gz
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: blogc-make-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-git-receiver-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-runserver-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpyv5ommhg')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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: 8

 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 47 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 



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

blogc-git-receiver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    blogc-make
    git
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    make
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    tar

blogc-make (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    blogc
    blogc-runserver
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

blogc-runserver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
blogc:
    blogc
    blogc(x86-64)

blogc-git-receiver:
    blogc-git-receiver
    blogc-git-receiver(x86-64)

blogc-make:
    blogc-make
    blogc-make(x86-64)

blogc-runserver:
    blogc-runserver
    blogc-runserver(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2338778
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Haskell, R, fonts, PHP, Perl, Java, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #2)

> 
> ===== Issues =====
> 
> - Since one file is under an MIT license, the text of that license is also
>   required,
>  
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text.
> 
>   I opened an upstream PR to amend the upstream LICENSE file. Since the
>   copyright notices are included in the SPDX fields in the source file
> header,
>   and the license text is taken from the URL cited in the source file, it
>   should be safe enough to patch this in downstream while awaiting upstream
>   review.
> 

Done.

> - The format of
> 
>     VCS:     https://github.com/blogc/blogc
> 
>   is not consistent with the documentation at
> 
>     https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/tags.html
> 
>   which says it should be
> 
>     (Public) upstream source code VCS location. Format <vcs>:<address> with
>     <vcs> being the VCS command used (e.g. git, svn, hg, …) and <address>
> being
>     the location of the repository as used by the VCS tool to clone/checkout
>     the repository (e.g. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm.git).
> 
>   Therefore, please change this to
> 
>     VCS:     git:https://github.com/blogc/blogc.git

Fixed thanks.

> 
> - The getsource.sh script does not work. Change
> 
>     tar -cvf blogc
> 
>   to
> 
>     tar -cvf blogc.tar blogc

Fixed thanks.

> 
> - I was going to question the use of a "getsource.sh" script, as you normally
>   don’t need one to package a git snapshot from GitHub. You would be able to
>   change
> 
>     Source0: blogc.tar.gz
>     # Need Git files for build version from a commit
>     Source1: getsource.sh
> 
>   to
> 
>     Source: 
> https://github.com/blogc/blogc/archive/%{commit}/blogc-%{commit}.tar.gz
> 
>   and
> 
>     %autosetup  -n blogc -p 1
> 
>   to
> 
>     %autosetup  -n blogc-%{commit} -p 1
> 
>   or maybe something like
> 
>     %autosetup  -n blogc-%{commit} -p 1 -S git
>     git tag v%{version}
> 
>   if this weren’t a snapshot…
> 
>   but then I saw how the version number actually includes the number of git
>   commits since the last release tag in the version number ("29"):
> 
>     0.20.1.29-b1ae
> 
>   This is hard to figure out by hand and hard-code, and it absolutely
> requires
>   the real upstream .git directory to do it automatically.
> 
>   Unfortunately, this means the source archive technically includes not just
>   everything in a git checkout, but everything that has *ever* been committed
>   to the upstream git repository, which is probably fine but really expands
> the
>   scope of review.
> 
>   I think what you’re doing is probably the best you can do while still
>   generating the right version number, but please consider changing
> 
>     git clone https://github.com/blogc/blogc
> 
>   in getsource.sh to
> 
>     git clone https://github.com/blogc/blogc --shallow-since=2021-01-01
> 
>   which still goes back far enough to catch the last release tag on
> 2021-01-02,
>   without including all of the project’s ancient history.
> 

Done.

> - Please consider encouraging upstream to make a new release.
> 

Done:
https://github.com/blogc/blogc/issues/19

> - While the changelog is correctly formatted, I don’t think it makes sense to
>   include changelog entries from the upstream spec file, before the package
> was
>   included in Fedora.

The author has a copr:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/rafaelmartins/blogc/
and it is mentioned on the main webpage
https://blogc.rgm.io/

probably helpful to have these if any people transition from copr to the package when it is in Fedora.

> 
> - As demonstrated in
> 
>    
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_requiring_base_package
> 
>   the dependencies among subpackages of the same RPM should be arch-specific.
> 
>     Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
>     Requires: %{name}-make = %{version}-%{release}
>     Requires: %{name}-runserver = %{version}-%{release}
> 
>   (in various places) should become, respectively:
> 
>     Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>     Requires: %{name}-make%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>     Requires: %{name}-runserver%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> 

Done.

> - While this isn’t strictly required, it can be nicer to write
> 
>     # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17
>     Patch:   getaddrinfo.patch
> 
>   as
> 
>     # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17
>     Patch:   https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17.patch
> 
>   or, if you want to preserve the patch name,
> 
>     # https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17
>     Patch:   https://github.com/blogc/blogc/pull/17.patch#/getaddrinfo.patch
> 

Done.

> - Since this will be a new leaf package, consider adding:
> 
>     # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
>     ExcludeArch:    %{ix86}
> 
>   This package builds fine on i686, but there is no value in building it
> there.

Still have a running and almost indestructible i686 machine.

> 
> - I was able to determine experimentally that 
> 
>     BuildRequires: git
> 
>   can and should be replaced with
> 
>     BuildRequires: git-core
> 
>   Consider trying to determine if 
> 
>     Requires: git
> 
>   can be replaced with
> 
>     Requires: git-core
> 
>   too, based on the particular git commands that are actually used.
> 
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ChangeToGitCore

This seems ok. Main commands used are  git, git-shell, git_archive_cmd, git-receive-pack, git-upload-pack




spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/blogc.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2073913 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8544116 to 8571272

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8571272
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338778-blogc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08571272-blogc/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.

Thanks, I’ll get to re-reviewing this as soon as I have a chance.

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3)
> Still have a running and almost indestructible i686 machine.

This may be true, but the last full i686 release of Fedora was Fedora 30. We don’t build an i686 kernel, publish i686 repos, or prepare i686 release artifacts. The only reason we still have i686 at all is to support multilib on x86_64 releases, which is basically just to support Steam and Wine. More details are in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval.

So – does building an i686 package of this command-line tool for Fedora do you any good as an i686 hardware owner, given that you already can’t run Fedora on it?

I’ll clarify that excluding i686 isn’t mandatory, and adding "ExcludeArch:  %{ix86}" isn’t required for approval.

Ok, will add
ExcludeArch: %{ix86}

Can do this on import if there is nothing else to change.

Added ExcludeArch: %{ix86}

spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/blogc.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2073930 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8571272 to 8573575

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8573575
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338778-blogc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08573575-blogc/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.

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

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

===== Issues =====

- This doesn’t block the review, but it occurred to me that it would be better
  if getsource.sh accepted the commit hash as a parameter (or read it from the
  spec file in the same directory if you’re feeling clever), in order to make
  source archive generation more reproducible.


===== Notes =====

- All findings from the previous review were addressed.

- The snapshot format %{commitdate}.%{shortcommit}, i.e. <date>.<revision>,
  wasn’t allowed until recently, but per
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots
  it’s now acceptable.


===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT
     License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/fedora/review/2338778-blogc/20250128/review-
     blogc/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.

     src/common/utf8.c is based on other work, but is not a bundled library

[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

     This is harder to audit because the .git/ directory in the archive
     contains code and content that are in the git history but are not directly
     visible. The use of a shallow clone helps a lot, and I believe everything
     is OK.

[-]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

     Upstream says:

       Running the `blogc-git-receiver` tool requires:
       
       - git, make and tar  

[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]: 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 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 1917 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in blogc-
     git-receiver , blogc-runserver
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (tests pass)

[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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.

     (This worked in the previous review, so I didn’t test it again.)

[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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-git-receiver-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-make-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-runserver-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmphsp4z6v4')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

blogc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: blogc.tar.gz
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: blogc-runserver-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-git-receiver-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          blogc-make-debuginfo-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpe6nd1yg5')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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: 8

 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 47 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



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

blogc-git-receiver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    blogc-make(x86-64)
    git-core
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    make
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    tar

blogc-make (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    blogc(x86-64)
    blogc-runserver(x86-64)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

blogc-runserver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
blogc:
    blogc
    blogc(x86-64)

blogc-git-receiver:
    blogc-git-receiver
    blogc-git-receiver(x86-64)

blogc-make:
    blogc-make
    blogc-make(x86-64)

blogc-runserver:
    blogc-runserver
    blogc-runserver(x86-64)



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

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blogc

Thanks for the review.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/376603/

FEDORA-2025-9333705a40 (blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9333705a40

FEDORA-2025-9333705a40 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9333705a40 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9333705a40

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

FEDORA-2025-9333705a40 (blogc-0.20.1^20240602.b1ae9c9-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.