Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/benzea/hwtesting-unstable/fwts.git/tree/fwts.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/benzea/hwtesting-unstable/fedora-26-ppc64le/00593096-fwts/fwts-17.07.00-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Firmware Test Suite (FWTS) is a test suite that performs sanity checks on Intel/AMD PC firmware. It is intended to identify BIOS and ACPI errors and if appropriate it will try to explain the errors and give advice to help workaround or fix firmware bugs. It is primarily intended to be a Linux-specific firmware troubleshooting tool. Fedora Account System Username: benzea https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/benzea/hwtesting-unstable/build/593096/ contains a successful copr build.
>%{_datadir}/fwts/* This will mark all the files inside the directory as owned, but not the directory itself. Removing the wildcard will own the directory and all files within. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Wildcarding_Files_inside_a_Created_Directory >%setup -a 0 -n fwts-%{version} -c I believe the -n option is unnecessary here; "%{name}-%{version}" is the default. Are are no files marked as %license. I took a look at the source and it seems that upstream does not provide the licence text. You should inquire them to include it. The README* files could probably be included in the package as %doc files.
Thanks! I have not included the README_SOURCE.txt with a comment as it is not really useful in the binary package. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21423208
Ah, I forgot to mention that the original spec file link points to the current version of it. http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/benzea/hwtesting-unstable/fwts.git/tree/fwts.spec
- Could you please update to the current version 17.08.00 - Please use a location/link for the Spec URL, which can be used by fedora-review. Check with: fedora-review -b 1484421 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
- Please use name and version in the filenames of patches, e.g.: fwts-17.08.00-some-info.patch - from local fedora-review on src.rpm: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: fwts-17.07.00/configure.ac:9
Alright, a new revision, changes: * Removed patch to fix build on PPC (upstream has a different workaround) * run "make check" in %check I did not rename the patch to remove -Werror. This patch should be version independent so I don't think it makes sense to include the version information there. Builds on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22074251 SPEC: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/benzea/hwtesting-unstable/fwts.git/plain/fwts.spec SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4254/22074254/fwts-17.08.00-1.fc28.src.rpm
Please start the name of the patch with %{name} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25prep_section:_.25patch_commands Patch file names often look like "telnet-0.17-env.patch", which is the format %{name} - %{version} - REASON.patch" (though sometimes version is omitted).
There was a new release, so here the updated package. I also renamed the patch now. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22121920 SPEC: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/benzea/hwtesting-unstable/fwts.git/plain/fwts.spec SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1922/22121922/fwts-17.09.00-1.fc28.src.rpm
The date in the changelog was not updated Mon Aug 21 2017 Benjamin Berg <bberg> - 17.09.00-1 Version 17.09.00 was released on 2017-09-27
Taking this review
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file copyright is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text # License file has been requested upstream: # https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1712604 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 802 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/fedora- review/1484421-fwts/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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: [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fwts- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools # This should be reported upstream # AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: fwts-17.09.00/configure.ac:9 [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fwts-17.09.00-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm fwts-debuginfo-17.09.00-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm fwts-17.09.00-1.fc28.src.rpm fwts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernelscan fwts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) fwts.src:27: W: setup-not-quiet 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fwts-debuginfo-17.09.00-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm fwts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory fwts-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FirmwareTestSuite <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fwts-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) fwts.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FirmwareTestSuite <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fwts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernelscan 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- fwts-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fwts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfwts.so.1()(64bit) libfwtsacpica.so.1()(64bit) libfwtsiasl.so.1()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-c.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- fwts-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fwts-debuginfo fwts-debuginfo(x86-64) fwts: fwts fwts(x86-64) libfwts.so.1()(64bit) libfwtsacpica.so.1()(64bit) libfwtsiasl.so.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://fwts.ubuntu.com/release/fwts-V17.09.00.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 32bb1a90f35cc07bc4febd4c0049c126908c0e5e29ebf1c7e5ffd15d9df706df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 32bb1a90f35cc07bc4febd4c0049c126908c0e5e29ebf1c7e5ffd15d9df706df AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: fwts-17.09.00/configure.ac:9 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1484421 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package looks good
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwts
Forgot to close this ticket earlier.