Spec URL: http://duch.mimuw.edu.pl/~marmarek/osslsigncode/osslsigncode.spec SRPM URL: http://duch.mimuw.edu.pl/~marmarek/osslsigncode/osslsigncode-2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: I'd like to unretire osslsigncode package, as there is maintained fork of the original (abandoned) package. It's at https://github.com/mtrojnar/osslsigncode The packaging is based on the retired package with minor changes (docs, ./autogen.sh call). This is my first package in Fedora, so I'll need a sponsor. Package description: osslsigncode is a small tool that implements part of the functionality of the Microsoft tool signtool.exe - more exactly the Authenticode signing and timestamping. But osslsigncode is based on OpenSSL and cURL, and thus should be able to compile on most platforms where these exist. Fedora Account System Username: marmarek
Hello, Marek. I am also not yet sponsored, but I would like to offer some feedback which might help you get this package through the review process more quickly when a sponsored packager looks at it. These are merely suggestions, but I believe that a reviewer will flag each of these issues: 1: "MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license." The LICENSE.txt file appears to indicate that this project uses GPLv3+, with an exception to allow linking to OpenSSL. Your spec indicates GPLv2+, but I believe that "GPLv3+ with exceptions" would be appropriate. I might be wrong. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing 2: "MUST: 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 must be included in %license" You should add "%license LICENSE.txt" to the spec. 3: I would recommend making a koji scratch build in order to demonstrate that the package builds in mock: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Install_the_developer_client_tools 4: "The BuildRoot: tag, Group: tag, and %clean section SHOULD NOT be used." You should remove the BuildRoot tag and the %clean section: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
I should add: 5: Group: is not used in Fedora
6: "The contents of the buildroot SHOULD NOT be removed in the first line of %install."
Thanks for the review. I've actually already made a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35260552 I've updated spec and src.rpm according to your comments and scheduled new scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35368544
We have %make_build and %make_install macros, you should us them instead of involving make directly (they should include the arguments you pass to them manually). I also recommend putting the Name before the Summary (the current order is not very common). %defattr(-,root,root,-) is no longer needed.
https://github.com/mtrojnar/osslsigncode/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/osslsigncode-%{version}.tar.gz This should also work and seems simpler: https://github.com/mtrojnar/osslsigncode/archive/%{version}/osslsigncode-%{version}.tar.gz Even: %{url}/archive/%{version}/osslsigncode-%{version}.tar.gz Or: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Oh, I didn't know github supports archive urls as this too. Updated (including also %make macros). BTW %make_build doesn't add %{?_smp_mflags} - the -jX thing; but it doesn't matter for one .c file here.
$ rpm --eval '%make_build' /usr/bin/make -O -j7
Oh, indeed, I was looking at the wrong line in build log.
- COPYING.txt should go in %license not %doc
Updated.
- Add gcc as a BR 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/osslsigncode See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/osslsigncode/review- osslsigncode/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. [-]: 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 20480 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]: 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]: 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 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). [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: osslsigncode-2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm osslsigncode-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm osslsigncode-debugsource-2.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm osslsigncode-2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm osslsigncode.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osslsigncode 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.