Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jhli/safeclib/fedora-28-x86_64/00773240-libsafec/libsafec.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jhli/safeclib/fedora-28-x86_64/00773240-libsafec/libsafec-03032018-2.0.g570fa5.fc28.src.rpm Description: safec fork with all C11 Annex K functions https://rurban.github.io/safeclib/ Fedora Account System Username: jhli
Version: 03032018 Release: 2.0.g570fa5%{?dist} - That's not a correct version/release, don't use the date but the version provided on Github: Version: 3.3 Release: 2%{?dist} - Add a comment above each patch explaining why they are needed or ling to an upstream bug: Patch0: pic_flag.patch Patch1: pkgconfig_include.patch - Capitalize the summary and description - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build - ldconfig is not needed anymore starting Fedona 28: %post -n libsafec -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -n libsafec -p /sbin/ldconfig See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets - Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root) It is already the default. - Not needed: %{_includedir}/libsafec/safe_compile.h %{_includedir}/libsafec/safe_config.h %{_includedir}/libsafec/safe_lib_errno.h %{_includedir}/libsafec/safe_lib.h %{_includedir}/libsafec/safe_mem_lib.h %{_includedir}/libsafec/safe_str_lib.h %{_includedir}/libsafec/safe_types.h You already included these files by specifying %{_includedir}/libsafec - Remove %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0 - Thus you have an unpackaged .la file that you need to remove in %install: find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete
- You must install the license with %license in %files and should install the readme file: %files -n libsafec %license COPYING %doc README %{_libdir}/libsafec-3.3.so.* %files -n libsafec-devel %{_libdir}/libsafec-3.3.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/safec-3.3.pc %{_includedir}/libsafec %files -n libsafec-check %license COPYING %{_bindir}/check_for_unsafe_apis %{_mandir}/man1/check_for_unsafe_apis.1.* - Use .* instead of .gz for the man page as the compression can change in the future: %{_mandir}/man1/check_for_unsafe_apis.1.* 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]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "ISC", "FSF All Permissive". 543 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libsafec/review-libsafec/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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libsafec-check [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsafec-3.3-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm libsafec-devel-3.3-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm libsafec-check-3.3-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm libsafec-debuginfo-3.3-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm libsafec-debugsource-3.3-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm libsafec-3.3-2.fc29.src.rpm libsafec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) safec -> cafes, safe, safes libsafec.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C safec fork with all C11 Annex K functions libsafec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US safec -> cafes, safe, safes libsafec.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsafec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsafec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) safec -> cafes, safe, safes libsafec.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C safec fork with all C11 Annex K functions libsafec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US safec -> cafes, safe, safes 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Made changes based on your feedback SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jhli/safeclib/fedora-28-x86_64/00779112-libsafec/libsafec.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jhli/safeclib/fedora-28-x86_64/00779112-libsafec/libsafec-3.3-3.fc28.src.rpm rpmlint: libsafec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Safec -> Cafes, Safe, Safes libsafec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Safec -> Cafes, Safe, Safes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Thanks! I really appreciate the review!
All ok, package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsafec