Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-bettercap-gatt.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-bettercap-gatt-0-0.1.20200403git569d3d9.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/bettercap/gatt Description: Gatt is a Go package for building Bluetooth Low Energy peripherals. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43011507 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-bettercap-gatt-0-0.1.20200403git569d3d9.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-bettercap-gatt.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-04 golang-github-bettercap-gatt.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-bettercap-gatt-devel-0-0.1.20200403git569d3d9.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-bettercap-gatt-devel.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-04 golang-github-bettercap-gatt-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/bettercap/gatt/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab
Generally looks good to me. I see one issue, see the review report. Issues: ======= - Package contains bundled copies of libraries. xpc and gioctl under MIT/Expat license. It would be good to mention that in comment around License tag and add bundled provides https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. I think that those libraries are rather minimal source libraries and it is fine to bundle them for time being(when tracked), possibly work with upstream to de-bundle them. ===== MUST items ===== 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]: 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. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-dvsekhvalnov-jose2go- devel, golang-github-opencontainers-runc-devel, golang-github- ...snip... nrdcg-auroradns-devel, golang-github-tomnomnom-assetfinder-devel) [-]: %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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 40960 bytes in 14 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 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: [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
(In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #1) > - Package contains bundled copies of libraries. xpc and gioctl under > MIT/Expat license. It would be good to mention that in comment around > License tag and add bundled provides > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. I think > that those libraries are rather minimal source libraries and it is fine to > bundle them for time being(when tracked), possibly work with upstream to > de-bundle them. It looks like that the bundled parts are included to fix build issues. I opened an issue about the unbundling. %changelog * Thu Apr 23 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0-0.2.20200404git569d3d9 - Add details about the bundling (rhbz#1820805) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-bettercap-gatt.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-bettercap-gatt-0-0.2.20200423git569d3d9.fc31.src.rpm
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2) > (In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #1) > > - Package contains bundled copies of libraries. xpc and gioctl under > > MIT/Expat license. It would be good to mention that in comment around > > License tag and add bundled provides > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. I think > > that those libraries are rather minimal source libraries and it is fine to > > bundle them for time being(when tracked), possibly work with upstream to > > de-bundle them. > > It looks like that the bundled parts are included to fix build issues. I > opened an issue about the unbundling. > > Thanks for adding bringing it up in upstream. I don't want to be overly pedantic, but could you add breakdown in the comment near license section that those libs are under MIT/expat license for the distribution build. Otherwise looks good. Approved.
(In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #3) > Thanks for adding bringing it up in upstream. I don't want to be overly > pedantic, but could you add breakdown in the comment near license section > that those libs are under MIT/expat license for the distribution build. > Otherwise looks good. Approved. Sure, I will add it before the import. Thanks for the review.