Spec URL: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm.spec SRPM URL: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.0-2.src.rpm Description: This program analyses the list of currently installed RPM packages and reports found nonfree packages to stdout. Fedora Account System Username: suve The build was successfully tested in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18476914 The build was also done in copr and worked successfully for all platforms apart from epel-5-i386, epel-5-x86_64 and fedora-26-ppc64le. (Rather confusing, seeing how this is essentially a bash script + manpage, no compilation needed.) https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/ I am the upstream developer of this software. As this is my first submitted package, I am looking for reviews and sponsorship.
Small as it may be, but there are still some relevant things in the guidelines: > Name: vrms-rpm > > %description > vrms-rpm reports nonfree packages installed on the system. Explaining in the package description what "vrms" means would be good. Is it based one "Virtual Richard M. Stallman"? > Release: 2 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning > License: GPLv3 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > # Archive generated from git repository > # No modifications made > Source0: %{name}-%{version}.zip https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL > install -m 755 %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/vrms-rpm.sh %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/vrms-rpm > install -m 644 %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/vrms-rpm.man %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/vrms-rpm.1 Examine the rpmbuild build output and notice that at the start of every main spec file section, such as %prep, %build, %install, %clean, rpmbuild enters the builddir automatically. If it doesn't, adjust the %setup macro in the %prep section appropriately. It is not necessary to specify the full source path like you've done it here. > %files > %{_mandir}/man1/vrms-rpm.1.gz The more flexible notation for manual pages is %{_mandir}/man1/vrms-rpm.1* to cover any compressor and even disabled compression.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1) > Explaining in the package description what "vrms" means would be good. Is it > based one "Virtual Richard M. Stallman"? It is a clone of said software. Would something like 'vrms-rpm ("virtual Richard M. Stallman") reports...' suffice? As for the release number: This is the spec file I used for the copr build; I had to re-package that one, hence the greater release number. I have now bumped it to 3 after making further changes to the spec file. (Although I've noticed that I've missed the %{dist} tag requirement, thank you for that.) Regarding the licence: I have added the licence file in the %files section, as instructed on the wiki page. Regarding the Source0 URL: I added a tag in the git repo and switched to using a generated tarball for the source. Thank you for your notes regarding the builddir and the manpage notation. I have made appropriate changes to the spec file. Updated links to the spec file and the SRPM: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.0-3.spec https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.0-3.src.rpm Once again, a link to the koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18528835
I have made a new upstream release. Updated links to the spec file and the SRPM: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-1.spec https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-1.src.rpm koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18845206 copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/537305/
You should use install with -p option (in addition to -m) for installing files into their destination location in %install. Otherwise they get package-build-time timestamps. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
Thank you. Fixed. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-2.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-2.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19007901 copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/539934/
I'll take this review formally. I've also seen you do at least one informal review[1], showing that you understand the guidelines, so I'll be happy to sponsor you as well (since no one else has said they'll sponsor you). [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1444518
I ran fedora-review on the package and a minor issue with the dist-tag came up, so I made a new release. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-3.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-3.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19641736 copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/554436/ Thank you for sponsorship, Neal. I'm still fairly new to RPM packaging, so I prefer to be cautious about reviewing (nothing worse than giving out bad advice). Still, I have done another two reviews. [1] [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1451298 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1450572
I have made a new upstream release. This one required some more significant changes to the spec file, as localised files and a Makefile were introduced. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-1.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-1.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19804618 copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/560464/ Ignore the lone failed chroot for copr; the logs say it failed to install bash during the mock-build.
> URL: https://github.com/%{githubowner}/%{name}/ > Source0: %{url}archive/%{gittag0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{gittag0}.tar.gz Please adjust the URL structure to be properly segmented. For example: URL: https://github.com/%{githubowner}/%{name} Source0: %{url}/archive/%{gittag0}/%{name}-%{gittag0}.tar.gz > make build PREFIX=/usr %{?_smp_mflags} Please use %{_prefix} for PREFIX= value. Also, as an alternative, you can simplify this with "%make_build PREFIX=%{_prefix}" > make install PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr %{?_smp_mflags} Use %{buildroot}%{_prefix} here. Also, consider supporting DESTDIR so that the standard %make_install macro works.
> %{find_lang} %{name} --with-man Please use "%find_lang" instead of "%{find_lang}", as it helps identify it as a parameterized macro.
Adjusted the URL and the %find_lang usage as asked. I've actually tried using %{prefix}, but that didn't work. Didn't think about trying the underscored version... Fixed. Did not use the %make_build macro, as that results in a "make" call, whereas the project requires "make build" (default target just prints some help text). spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-2.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-2.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19816977 copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/561094/
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: vrms-rpm-1.2-2.spec should be vrms-rpm.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "CDDL CeCILL-B CC by", "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1433749-vrms- rpm-1.2-2/licensecheck.txt [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc27.noarch.rpm vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc27.src.rpm vrms-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Stallman -> Stall man, Stall-man, Stableman vrms-rpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Stallman -> Stall man, Stall-man, Stableman 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory vrms-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Stallman -> Stall man, Stall-man, Stableman 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- vrms-rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash bash gettext grep Provides -------- vrms-rpm: vrms-rpm Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/suve/vrms-rpm/archive/release-1.2.tar.gz#/vrms-rpm-release-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9ae6a24cc70366683fee33ce6dfdd4abc5663cf1ddb419cf73924fe129437185 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ae6a24cc70366683fee33ce6dfdd4abc5663cf1ddb419cf73924fe129437185 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1433749 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Make sure that the spec file is vrms-rpm.spec on import into Dist-Git. Otherwise, looks good to me. PACKAGE APPROVED.
I have sponsored you into the packager group. Welcome to the Fedora Packagers group!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/vrms-rpm
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7867abc53f
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b845d4ecb4
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-78b01e2393
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-78b01e2393
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-98ccd46108
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-bbbae25d00
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b845d4ecb4
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7867abc53f
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-98ccd46108
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-bbbae25d00
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.