Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~wart/duc.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~wart/duc-1.4.4-3.fc33.src.rpm Description: A library and suite of tools for inspecting disk usage Fedora Account System Username: wart
Please update the spec file according the guidelines. Multiple parts are obsolete. Also, the license is LGPLv3+ and not GPLv2.
I've submitted this earlier (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764368), but it didn't gather enough attention. My 0.02 €: As duc relies on an index to work properly, I suggest periodical automated generation (similar to mlocate): > - Have a system-wide index available to root in /var/cache/duc, which is updated without restriction daily and is used when root calls "duc ui". > - Have a service available for users they can use to index their homedirectory. To match my use case I switched to a profile.d drop-in for now. What do you guys think?
>Group: Applications/System The "Group:" tag is no longer used in Fedora. >%clean The %clean section is no longer used in Fedora. >%install >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Don't do this. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections Also, looking at the upstream repo, there's no readily-executable configure script, but configure.ac. The Makefile is also provided as Makefile.am. Shouldn't you have "Requires: autoconf" and "Requires: automake" because of this?
*sorry, I meant BuildRequires: for autoconf and automake.
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1) > Please update the spec file according the guidelines. Multiple parts are > obsolete. My bad. These were leftovers from the EPEL packaging that I had been using. I have removed them and will post a new spec/srpm shortly. > Also, the license is LGPLv3+ and not GPLv2. Upstream is inconsistent on this. The upstream release notes claim a switch to LGPL, while the COPYING file in the released source tarball is for GPLv2. Even though the intent was to make it LGPL, I feel I have to abide by what was actually delivered in the upstream tarball.
(In reply to Robert Führicht from comment #2) > I've submitted this earlier > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764368), but it didn't gather > enough attention. My apologies. Had I seen this sooner I would have helped in your effort. Would you like to collaborate to get this approved? To be honest, I'm primarily interested in getting this into the epel7/epel8 branches and not as much in Fedora. > My 0.02 €: > > As duc relies on an index to work properly, I suggest periodical automated > generation (similar to mlocate): > > > - Have a system-wide index available to root in /var/cache/duc, which is updated without restriction daily and is used when root calls "duc ui". > > - Have a service available for users they can use to index their homedirectory. > > To match my use case I switched to a profile.d drop-in for now. > > What do you guys think? Reading through the comments in the earlier review, I think it would be best to drop the services to automatically index directories. I don't think the services are necessarily required to make duc usable, as one can also: * run it as a cron job * run it by hand for a one-off index * Use an index generated on a different host
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #3) > >Group: Applications/System > The "Group:" tag is no longer used in Fedora. > >%clean > The %clean section is no longer used in Fedora. > >%install > >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > Don't do this. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections Fixed. > Also, looking at the upstream repo, there's no readily-executable configure > script, but configure.ac. The Makefile is also provided as Makefile.am. > Shouldn't you have "Requires: autoconf" and "Requires: automake" because of > this? These are not present in the upstream git repo (as I would expect), but they are present in the released tarball, which is what this is being built from. So no requirement on autoconf/automake is necessary. New spec: https://fedorapeople.org/~wart/duc.spec New srpm: https://fedorapeople.org/~wart/duc-1.4.4-4.fc33.src.rpm
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → make_build - make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT → make_install - nitpicky: Split your BR one per line - Add a dot at the end of the description: %description A library and suite of tools for inspecting disk usage. - There is a signature file along the archive duc-1.4.4.tar.gz.asc. Consider verifying it with the new macro %gpgverify (search for it in the guidelines). - Consider notifying upstream about their incorrect license in the tarball, maybe they could fix it. Please consider co-maintaining with Robert Führicht (fas: fuero). He is not sponsored though, so that would be your task to help him with that. 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Khronos License". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/duc/review-duc/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. [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 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). [?]: 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. [x]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: duc-1.4.4-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm duc-debuginfo-1.4.4-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm duc-debugsource-1.4.4-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm duc-1.4.4-4.fc33.src.rpm duc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/duc/COPYING 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
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.