Bug 2405065

Hello!
Unfortunately, the provided SRPM cannot be successfully rebuilt in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138310061

Regards,
Lukas

Seems there is some change in current build root as even original gpgme package fails to build atm. I will investigate

The issue is that it has to create a socket which is too long with all the builder path prefixes. Fixed in current version
Spec file and srpm on same place, build with current srpm:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138370149

Thanks!  Generally, LGTM.  Remarks:

The signature key used to verify the sources does not match the upstream:

https://gnupg.org/signature_key.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1d12afc4a2516573f661809ba68b8d955016db1101143fe5213ab5aafabd05a4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8eef03be67f3d4f0be96a6356521721388ae6477866ac0a06d3cf63e84c89a7d

Nits:
* Replace `%if ! %{with devel}` -> `%if %{without devel}`.
* Specs should use %global instead of %define unless justified.  Current use: `%define multilib_arches`
* If possible, the `%{gpgverify}` macro should be used to verify the sources.

(In reply to Lukáš Zaoral from comment #4)
> The signature key used to verify the sources does not match the upstream:
updated

> * Replace `%if ! %{with devel}` -> `%if %{without devel}`.
done

> * Specs should use %global instead of %define unless justified. 
done

> * If possible, the `%{gpgverify}` macro should be used to verify the sources.
done

updated sources same place, latest build at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138479931

Thank you, Michal!  Setting fedora-review+.

Please, address this SHOULD item before import:
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not the first command in %prep.   Source 2 is not
     passed to gpgverify.

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures for details.

Regards,
Lukas

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

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

===== 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]: 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.

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.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Sources are verVified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not the first command in %prep. Source 2 is not
     passed to gpgverify.
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: compat-gpgme124-1.24.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm
          compat-gpgmepp124-1.24.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm
          compat-qgpgme124-qt5-1.24.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm
          compat-qgpgme124-qt6-1.24.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm
          compat-gpgme124-1.24.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmp7kfmfpc3')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

compat-gpgme124.spec:105: W: unversioned-explicit-provides q%{name}
compat-qgpgme124-qt5.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion qcompat-gpgme124 < 1.20.0 obsoletes qcompat-gpgme124
compat-qgpgme124-qt6.aarch64: W: no-documentation
compat-gpgme124.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/compat-gpgme124/COPYING
compat-gpgme124.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/compat-gpgme124/COPYING.LESSER
compat-gpgme124.spec:10: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 39 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: compat-gpgme124-debuginfo-1.24.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpwuwxo2o5')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 5

compat-qgpgme124-qt6.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqgpgmeqt6.so.15.6.2 /lib64/libgpgme.so.11
compat-qgpgme124-qt6.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqgpgmeqt6.so.15.6.2 /lib64/libassuan.so.0
compat-qgpgme124-qt6.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqgpgmeqt6.so.15.6.2 /lib64/libm.so.6
compat-qgpgme124-qt5.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqgpgme.so.15.6.2 /lib64/libgpgme.so.11
compat-qgpgme124-qt5.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqgpgme.so.15.6.2 /lib64/libassuan.so.0
compat-qgpgme124-qt5.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqgpgme.so.15.6.2 /lib64/libm.so.6
compat-gpgmepp124.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgpgmepp.so.6.21.3 /lib64/libassuan.so.0
compat-gpgmepp124.aarch64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgpgmepp.so.6.21.3 /lib64/libm.so.6
compat-qgpgme124-qt5.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion qcompat-gpgme124 < 1.20.0 obsoletes qcompat-gpgme124
compat-qgpgme124-qt6.aarch64: W: no-documentation
compat-gpgme124.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/compat-gpgme124/COPYING
compat-gpgme124.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/compat-gpgme124/COPYING.LESSER
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings, 43 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.4 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgme/gpgme-1.24.3.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bfc17f5bd1b178c8649fdd918956d277080f33df006a2dc40acdecdce68c50dd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfc17f5bd1b178c8649fdd918956d277080f33df006a2dc40acdecdce68c50dd
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgme/gpgme-1.24.3.tar.bz2.sig :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6773cb6864afbffe0cf43afa5c798e86cb9e4a5586b55d7b7331599af9fd25ca
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6773cb6864afbffe0cf43afa5c798e86cb9e4a5586b55d7b7331599af9fd25ca
https://gnupg.org/signature_key.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8eef03be67f3d4f0be96a6356521721388ae6477866ac0a06d3cf63e84c89a7d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8eef03be67f3d4f0be96a6356521721388ae6477866ac0a06d3cf63e84c89a7d


Requires
--------
compat-gpgme124 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gnupg2
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libassuan.so.0()(64bit)
    libassuan.so.0(LIBASSUAN_1.0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit)
    libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

compat-gpgmepp124 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    compat-gpgme124(aarch-64)
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libassuan.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11()(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.0)(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

compat-qgpgme124-qt5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    compat-gpgmepp124(aarch-64)
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libassuan.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit)
    libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11()(64bit)
    libgpgmepp.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

compat-qgpgme124-qt6 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    compat-gpgmepp124(aarch-64)
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit)
    libassuan.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit)
    libgpg-error.so.0(GPG_ERROR_1.0)(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11()(64bit)
    libgpgmepp.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
compat-gpgme124:
    compat-gpgme124
    compat-gpgme124(aarch-64)
    libgpgme.so.11()(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.0)(64bit)
    libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.1)(64bit)

compat-gpgmepp124:
    compat-gpgmepp124
    compat-gpgmepp124(aarch-64)
    gpgme-pp
    gpgme-pp(aarch-64)
    libgpgmepp.so.6()(64bit)

compat-qgpgme124-qt5:
    compat-qgpgme124-qt5
    compat-qgpgme124-qt5(aarch-64)
    libqgpgme.so.15()(64bit)
    qcompat-gpgme124

compat-qgpgme124-qt6:
    compat-qgpgme124-qt6
    compat-qgpgme124-qt6(aarch-64)
    libqgpgmeqt6.so.15()(64bit)


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2405065
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, Java, Haskell, Perl, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/compat-gpgme124

Folks, packages like this are not supposed to be named "compat-". See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple

Thanks for pointing that out. I've missed that.

Some context first: gpgme 2.0 was released, there is very limited api change that deprecated never working part of api was dropped. I've tried to rebuild all dependent packages in copr. Some packages failed to rebuild mostly because they used all switch case options (including the dropped one) to list all possible values so compiler/analyzer is quiet and does not complain. I've created PR with fixes for all affected packages and all are currently merged. Unfortunately, there are other packages that FTBFS for reasons unrelated to gpgme. So this package was created as temporary workaround for those. As there is no real API difference, there is no reason and no plan to keep this package.

So, the question now is if the name must be changed or if its ok for temporary package?

I am no packaging police, so I'll leave that up to you. I am just so sad that people keep using this naming pattern despite the guidelines :(

Well, given that package has already landed, renaming it is whole new process with extra provides/obsoletes than already needed for this package, I'm inclined to keep this name. It's a temporary package and it will removed (hopefully) soon.

-----
closing bug to match current status that package is already present in rawhide