Bug 2465140

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10423426
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2465140-qcbor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10423426-qcbor/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.

Updates for changelog.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BrianSipos/QCBOR/refs/heads/update-rpm-spec-tito/qcbor.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bsipos/BSL/centos-stream-9-x86_64/10423601-qcbor/qcbor-1.6.1-0.git.617.2578c3c.el9.src.rpm

Created attachment 2139426 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10423426 to 10423618

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10423618
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2465140-qcbor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10423618-qcbor/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.

Issues from earlier rpmlint have been corrected in a working branch and have an open PR to patch upstream https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR/pull/377

Please update:

%{_libdir}/*.so.*
to
%{_libdir}/libqcbor.so.1{,.*}

and also update

%{_libdir}/*.so
to
%{_libdir}/libqcbor.so

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

It is helpful to have / after directory names, so please update
%{_includedir}/qcbor
to
%{_includedir}/qcbor/

and

%{_libdir}/cmake/qcbor
to
%{_libdir}/cmake/qcbor/

Thank you for feedback, updated the spec.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BrianSipos/QCBOR/refs/heads/update-rpm-spec-tito/qcbor.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bsipos/BSL/epel-9-x86_64/10426207-qcbor/qcbor-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.el9.src.rpm

Created attachment 2139578 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10423618 to 10426263

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10426263
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2465140-qcbor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10426263-qcbor/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.

Interested in reviewing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468635 in return for reviewing this?

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

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



===== 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.
[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", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License",
     "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/qcbor/2465140-
     qcbor/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 46206 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qcbor-
     devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: qcbor-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          qcbor-devel-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          qcbor-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpco36x38v')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

qcbor.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: qcbor-git-618.0e81594.tar.gz
qcbor.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.1 ['1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45', '1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594']
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: qcbor-debuginfo-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpx9ivmnzd')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 3

qcbor.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.1 ['1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45', '1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594']
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



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

qcbor-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libqcbor.so.1()(64bit)
    qcbor(x86-64)



Provides
--------
qcbor:
    libqcbor.so.1()(64bit)
    qcbor
    qcbor(x86-64)

qcbor-devel:
    cmake(qcbor)
    qcbor-devel
    qcbor-devel(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/qcbor/2465140-qcbor/srpm/qcbor.spec	2026-06-09 14:47:54.917774800 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/qcbor/2465140-qcbor/srpm-unpacked/qcbor.spec	2026-05-05 17:01:59.000000000 +0300
@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
 Name: qcbor
 Version: 1.6.1
-Release: 0%{?dist}
+Release: 0.git.618.0e81594%{?dist}
 Summary: A CBOR encoder/decoder library
 URL: https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR
 License: BSD-3-Clause
-Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0: qcbor-git-618.0e81594.tar.gz
 
 BuildRequires: cmake
@@ -25,5 +25,5 @@
 
 %prep
-%setup -q -n QCBOR-%{version}
+%setup -q -n qcbor-git-618.0e81594
 %cmake -DBUILD_QCBOR_TEST=APP
 


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2465140
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, R, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Ocaml, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Please change
%cmake -DBUILD_QCBOR_TEST=APP


%build
%cmake_build

to




%build
%cmake -DBUILD_QCBOR_TEST=APP
%cmake_build

Configuration happens within the build step.

b) Please add blank lines between changelog entries to make them more readable.
It is also suggested to use %autochangelog and %autorelease to make updates
easier.

c) Not a must, but it may be helpful to package the documentation,  Adding
doxygen as a dependency, then in the build step use

pushd doxygen
doxygen
popd

should generate documentation files.  These should be in a separate subpackage.
Would suggest using Docbook format which can be opened by the program yelp, but
examine the documentation to see if another format is better. HTML requires bundling
javascript, so is not great. PDF bundles fonts - both are bigger in size than
docbook.  To generate docbook, change the entry in the doxyfile GENERATE_DOCBOOK.

d) Please download the original source from the repository, ideally the latest
release by changing

Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

to

Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Then apply any needed patches.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

e) For the devel package please change

Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}

to

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

Thank you for further review, updated the spec.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BrianSipos/QCBOR/refs/heads/update-rpm-spec-tito/qcbor.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bsipos/BSL/epel-9-x86_64/10583245-qcbor/qcbor-1.6.1-0.el9.src.rpm

I am a little confused on how the Tito tool relates to this package submission. For my own information, is Tito meant to be completely independent of these packaging tools and reviews?

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10583250
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2465140-qcbor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10583250-qcbor/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Documentation size is 1976141 bytes in 35 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

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.

From automatic review updated the -doc package name.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BrianSipos/QCBOR/refs/heads/update-rpm-spec-tito/qcbor.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bsipos/BSL/epel-10-x86_64/10583489-qcbor/qcbor-1.6.1-0.el10.src.rpm

Created attachment 2144852 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10583250 to 10583517

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10583517
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2465140-qcbor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10583517-qcbor/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.

Almost there. Additional comments:
a) Each of the changelog entries should have the release number, so instead of
* Fri Mar 20 2026 Laurence Lundblade <lgl> - 1.6.1
use
* Fri Mar 20 2026 Laurence Lundblade <lgl> - 1.6.1-1

b) Please also add a changelog entry for the current version of the spec file

* Tue Jun 09 2026 Brian Sipos <brian.sipos at gmail dot com> - 1.6.1-2
- Initial import into Fedora

c) Instead of (a) and (b) you could consider using %autochangelog and
%autorelease macros, but this is not required.

d) For the documentation please change

install -m644 doxygen/docbook/*.xml -D -t %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/qcbor/docbook/

to

install -m644 doxygen/docbook/*.xml -D -t %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/qcbor/

and

%files doc
%license LICENSE
%{_docdir}/qcbor/

to

%files doc
%license LICENSE
%doc %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/qcbor/

e) Please change:

Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz

to

Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

f) I have not used Tito, so do not know if there are things that need to be
tweaked to work for different distributions that use spec files.  It does seem
useful, will examine it in future.

More updates from feedback.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BrianSipos/QCBOR/refs/heads/update-rpm-spec-tito/qcbor.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bsipos/BSL/srpm-builds/10584166/qcbor-1.6.1-2.src.rpm

Created attachment 2144880 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10583517 to 10584178

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10584178
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2465140-qcbor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10584178-qcbor/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.

Comments:
a) Thanks, one minor suggestion, either do not package the html documentation
since this bundles extra javascript files, or if you do package it, place it
in %{_docdir}/qcbor and possibly in a separate subpackage doc-html
b) Use of the install command seems nicer:
install -m644 doxygen/docbook/*.xml -D -t %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/qcbor/
but cp is also ok. If using cp, consider using cp -p -r to preserve timestamps.
c) Approved.  Consider making changes (a) and (b) before import.  Thanks for
bringing this to Fedora.
d) Review of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2487504
Would be appreciated if time allows.

Removing HTML docs from feedback.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BrianSipos/QCBOR/refs/heads/update-rpm-spec-tito/qcbor.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bsipos/BSL/srpm-builds/10586494/qcbor-1.6.1-2.src.rpm

It seems you are not in the packager group.  Happy to sponsor you if you can do three mock reviews
and link to them here.