Spec URL: https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/libdnf-plugin-swidtags.spec SRPM URL: https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: The libdnf plugin swidtags_plugin.so can be used to keep the SWID information synchronized with SWID tags from dnf/yum repository metadata for package installations, upgrades, and removals using tools based on libdnf (for example microdnf). Fedora Account System Username: adelton
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34955623
I've respun the .spec and .src.rpm to add README and LICENSE, new scratch build is at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34971311
Taking.
https://github.com/swidtags/libdnf-plugin-swidtags/releases/download/libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.4/libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.4.tar.gz returns 404 > # make test This is better done with: %bcond_with test %if %{with test} make test %endif Plus the same section for BR. This disables test by default, but can be enabled on rpmbuild command line. See https://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html This is not blocker thou.
Who owns /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins a /usr/lib64/libdnf ? Can you pass smp flags to Make? make %{?_smp_mflags}
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #4) > https://github.com/swidtags/libdnf-plugin-swidtags/releases/download/libdnf- > plugin-swidtags-0.8.4/libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.4.tar.gz > > returns 404 Ouch, fixed. > > # make test > > This is better done with: > > %bcond_with test > %if %{with test} > make test > %endif > > Plus the same section for BR. This disables test by default, but can be > enabled on rpmbuild command line. See > https://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html > This is not blocker thou. Nice, will do.
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #5) > Who owns /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins a /usr/lib64/libdnf ? # rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libdnf /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins/README file /usr/lib64/libdnf is not owned by any package file /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins is not owned by any package libdnf-0.31.0-3.fc31.x86_64 So libdnf ships a file in it without shipping the directories themselves. I'd say this looks like a bug in libdnf packaging. > Can you pass smp flags to Make? > make %{?_smp_mflags} I can but we are compiling a single C file so not sure how much it's going to help.
I've respun the .spec and .src.rpm now.
That %bcond_with test is usually put on the very top of the file. Just a convention. 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins, /usr/lib64/libdnf [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/libdnf, /usr/lib64/libdnf/plugins See comments above [ ]: %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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/swidtags/libdnf- plugin-swidtags/releases/download/libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.4/libdnf- plugin-swidtags-0.8.4.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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 libdnf- plugin-swidtags [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. APPROVED
I've filed the directory ownership issue as bug 1714265.
Thanks for the review!
Filed https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/11942 and https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/11943 to get the dist-git repos.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdnf-plugin-swidtags
Built libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.5-1.fc31 and libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.5-1.fc30 in Koji.
libdnf-plugin-swidtags-0.8.5-1.fc31 is now in Fedora rawhide repository.