Spec URL: https://domsch.com/fedora/openarc/openarc.spec SRPM URL: https://domsch.com/fedora/openarc/openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc28.src.rpm Description: <The Trusted Domain Project is a community effort to develop and maintain a C library for producing ARC-aware applications and an open source milter for providing ARC service through milter-enabled MTAs. Fedora Account System Username: mdomsch https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenARC github homepage ARC is a technology proposal, put forward by a consortium of organizations, intended to allow a chain of message handlers (typically email operators) to confirm handling by trusted upstream handlers in an attempt to confirm the valid use of certain identifiers in the message. ARC is still experimental, and its specification may change. This package is intended for use by operators willing to take part in the experiment and provide their feedback to the development team. "milter" is a portmanteau of "mail filter" and refers to a protocol and API for communicating mail traffic information between MTAs and mail filtering plug-in applications. It was originally invented at Sendmail, Inc. but has also been adapted to other MTAs. A substantial amount of the code here is based on code developed as part of The OpenDKIM Project, also a TDP activity, which started as a code fork of version 2.8.3 of the open source "dkim-milter" package developed and maintained by Sendmail, Inc. The license used by The OpenDKIM Project is found in the LICENSE file. Portions of this project are also covered by the Sendmail Open Source License, available in this distribution in the file "LICENSE.Sendmail". See the copyright notice(s) in each source file to determine whether or not it is covered by both licenses. This package consists of a library that implements the ARC service and a milter-based filter application that can plug in to any milter-aware MTA to provide that service to sufficiently recent sendmail, Postfix or other MTAs that support the milter protocol.
rpmlint notices: # -- rpmlint starts -- rpmlint version 1.5 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{name} openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{version} openarc.src:90: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.src:91: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-openarc-header-leading-space.patch openarc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: %{URL}/archive/v1.0.0.Beta0.tar.gz and I guess one is not supposed to use a URL expansion in a Source reference, from what it ways [herrold@centos-7 openarc]$ grep -i url openarc.spec URL: https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenARC Source0: %{URL}/archive/v%{version}%{?pre_rel:.%pre_rel}.tar.gz [herrold@centos-7 openarc]$
You're right, it's not expanded. I've adjusted the spec to remove the need for expansion and reposted the package and spec at https://domsch.com/fedora/openarc/ $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-7-x86_64/result/*.rpm SPECS/openarc.spec libopenarc.x86_64: W: no-documentation libopenarc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{name} openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{version} openarc.src:90: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.src:91: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib (tmpfiles.d file is OK) SPECS/openarc.spec:82: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} SPECS/openarc.spec:82: W: macro-in-comment %{name} SPECS/openarc.spec:82: W: macro-in-comment %{version} SPECS/openarc.spec:90: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} SPECS/openarc.spec:91: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} SPECS/openarc.spec:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install - Do not glob the major soname version to avoid accidental soname bump: %{_libdir}/*.so.* - libopenarc-devel depends on libopenarc so it's not necessary to reinclude the licenses here: %files -n libopenarc-devel %license LICENSE LICENSE.Sendmail - Add gcc as a BR. - There's an obsolete m4 macros, patch it out. AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: OpenARC-1.0.0.Beta0/configure.ac:66 Replace it with LT_INIT. 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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/openarc/review- openarc/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [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. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libopenarc , openarc-debuginfo , openarc-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc29.x86_64.rpm libopenarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc29.x86_64.rpm libopenarc-devel-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc29.x86_64.rpm openarc-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc29.x86_64.rpm openarc-debugsource-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc29.x86_64.rpm openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc29.src.rpm openarc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) milter -> molter, miler, miter openarc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US milter -> molter, miler, miter libopenarc.x86_64: W: no-documentation libopenarc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openarc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) milter -> molter, miler, miter openarc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US milter -> molter, miler, miter openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{name} openarc.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{version} openarc.src:90: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.src:91: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} openarc.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Updated spec posted at above URL with all requested changes made.
Looks good to me, package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openarc
openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4dfe84084d
openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-81bb24fe00
openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-4dfe84084d
openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.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-2018-81bb24fe00
openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
openarc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta0.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.