Spec URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/badvpn.spec SRPM URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/badvpn-1.999.129-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: BadVPN is a layer 2 peer-to-peer VPN solution. Fedora Account System Username: pwalter koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941894 This is my first package and I would need a sponsor.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Please remove that line.
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1) > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > > Please remove that line. Agreed; thanks for pointing this out.
Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracker as I just got sponsored.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %cmake_build - Not needed rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - %make_install → %cmake_install See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_to_do_out-of-source_builds for the out of source builds. - Bump to 1.999.130 - Add a BR against gcc Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "NTP License". 360 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/badvpn/review- badvpn/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 without FPC exception. [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. [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]: 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 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define mycmake %(echo '%{cmake}' | sed 's/-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON//') [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. badvpn.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag badvpn.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://code.google.com/p/badvpn/ HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error badvpn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badvpn-flooder badvpn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badvpn-ncd badvpn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badvpn-ncd-request badvpn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badvpn-tunctl badvpn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary badvpn-udpgw 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Thanks for taking this review, Robert-André! I've hopefully fixed up all the issues you pointed out. "mycmake" define is a define, not a global because it's supposed to be local to the %build section. Spec URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/badvpn.spec SRPM URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/badvpn-1.999.130-1.fc33.src.rpm * Sat Aug 29 2020 Pete Walter <pwalter> - 1.999.130-1 - Update to 1.999.130 - Switch to new cmake macros - Switch to autosetup - Add gcc BuildRequires - Remove no longer needed buildroot cleaning in install section koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50440205
Package approved, you still need to find a sponsor.
Nice, thanks, Robert-André! Requested the repo now. (I don't need a sponsor: I got sponsored years ago.)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/badvpn
FEDORA-2020-69e1016486 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-69e1016486
FEDORA-2020-69e1016486 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-69e1016486 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-69e1016486 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-69e1016486 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.