Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/freeopcua/freeopcua.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/freeopcua/freeopcua-0-0.8.20200131.da2b76f.fc31.src.rpm Description: A LGPL C++ library to develop server and client OPC-UA applications. Fedora Account System Username: thofmann COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/thofmann/freeopcua/ Upstream does not provide a properly versioned SONAME and they have not responded to my request to add one [1]. Thus, I've added downstream soname versioning, following [2]. [1] https://github.com/FreeOpcUa/freeopcua/issues/337 [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version for some reason?
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1) > fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the > macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. > We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version > for some reason? Darn touchpads, I posted it by accident. Continuing: By the way, if it needs to be bundled, then I guess you ought to have both licenses, LGPLv3+ and MIT and a comment explaining why that is. There's also the issue with the address of the FSF, which should be corrected upstream. Is there a reason for not including and running the testsuite (which would add a whole bunch of licenses) in %check? The NEWS and Changelog files are empty and rpmlint complains: freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/ChangeLog freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/NEWS Since they serve no purpose, they should be eliminated, until upstream decides to add something to them. The source URL is giving me a 500 Internal Server Error, but I think GitHub is glitching at the moment. Kudos on submitting the patches upstream and soname versioning.
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #2) > (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1) > > fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the > > macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. > > We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version > > for some reason? > > Darn touchpads, I posted it by accident. Continuing: > > > By the way, if it needs to be bundled, then I guess you ought to have both > licenses, LGPLv3+ and MIT and a comment explaining why that is. Thanks for pointing out the bundled spdlog, somehow I forgot about it. But I'm working on a patch to unbundle. I'll update when I'm done. > > > There's also the issue with the address of the FSF, which should be > corrected upstream. I'll file a PR. > > > Is there a reason for not including and running the testsuite (which would > add a whole bunch of licenses) in %check? Yes, some of them fail, even in the upstream CI pipeline. > > > The NEWS and Changelog files are empty and rpmlint complains: > freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/ChangeLog > freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/NEWS > > Since they serve no purpose, they should be eliminated, until upstream > decides to add something to them. Will do. > > > The source URL is giving me a 500 Internal Server Error, but I think GitHub > is glitching at the moment. > > > Kudos on submitting the patches upstream and soname versioning.
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/freeopcua/freeopcua.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/freeopcua/freeopcua-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.src.rpm * Use system spdlog * Remove empty docs * FSF address PR: https://github.com/FreeOpcUa/freeopcua/pull/355
While we're waiting for the scratch build to complete to wrap up the review, I have a couple of questions. Do you intend to package the python bindings at a later time or not at all? I know in which cases we are required by the packaging guidelines to remove stuff from a source tarball, but are features like that elective? I know how push and pop are used in Perl arrays, but I've never understood how they work in a spec file and what their purpose is; if the explanation won't take up too much of your time, could you please explain how it works?
Scratch build completed successfully: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43607707 The package is approved! 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 269 files have unknown license. All of the other licenses belong to the testsuite, which is not packaged. [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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [-]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: [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: freeopcua-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.x86_64.rpm freeopcua-devel-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.x86_64.rpm freeopcua-debuginfo-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.x86_64.rpm freeopcua-debugsource-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.x86_64.rpm freeopcua-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.src.rpm freeopcua-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation freeopcua-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/opc/ua/global.h freeopcua-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/opc/ua/node.h freeopcua-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/opc/ua/subscription.h 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: freeopcua-debuginfo-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- freeopcua-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://freeopcua.github.io/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> freeopcua-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation freeopcua-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/opc/ua/global.h freeopcua-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/opc/ua/node.h freeopcua-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/opc/ua/subscription.h freeopcua.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://freeopcua.github.io/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> freeopcua-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://freeopcua.github.io/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> freeopcua-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://freeopcua.github.io/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FreeOpcUa/freeopcua/archive/da2b76f9ef1fb7100a109b4c0b20e08eedf76ed6/freeopcua-da2b76f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd5126253e30beb70b307796ba268ba11fc4eb4e30f3030393f91e112623290a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd5126253e30beb70b307796ba268ba11fc4eb4e30f3030393f91e112623290a Requires -------- freeopcua (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfmt.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libmbedcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libmbedx509.so.0()(64bit) libopcuacore.so.0.1()(64bit) libopcuaprotocol.so.0.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libspdlog.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) freeopcua-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) freeopcua(x86-64) libopcuaclient.so.0.1()(64bit) libopcuacore.so.0.1()(64bit) libopcuaprotocol.so.0.1()(64bit) libopcuaserver.so.0.1()(64bit) mbedtls-devel spdlog-devel freeopcua-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): freeopcua-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- freeopcua: freeopcua freeopcua(x86-64) libopcuaclient.so.0.1()(64bit) libopcuacore.so.0.1()(64bit) libopcuaprotocol.so.0.1()(64bit) libopcuaserver.so.0.1()(64bit) freeopcua-devel: cmake(FreeOpcUa) cmake(freeopcua) freeopcua-devel freeopcua-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libopcuaclient) pkgconfig(libopcuacore) pkgconfig(libopcuaprotocol) pkgconfig(libopcuaserver) freeopcua-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) freeopcua-debuginfo freeopcua-debuginfo(x86-64) freeopcua-debugsource: freeopcua-debugsource freeopcua-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1824467 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freeopcua
Thank you for reviewing! (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #5) > While we're waiting for the scratch build to complete to wrap up the review, > I have a couple of questions. > > Do you intend to package the python bindings at a later time or not at all? > I know in which cases we are required by the packaging guidelines to remove > stuff from a source tarball, but are features like that elective? I don't think there is any guideline that says that you need to build all features of a package. Usually, I add them if I need them or if someone requests them. It also depends on how much work is needed. That being said, I'll look into building the bindings for freeopcua. > > I know how push and pop are used in Perl arrays, but I've never understood > how they work in a spec file and what their purpose is; if the explanation > won't take up too much of your time, could you please explain how it works? It's quite simple actually. `pushd dir` is like `cd dir`, except that it remember the directory you came from and pushed it onto a stack. `popd` pops from the stack and `cd`s into the first item of the stack. Using pushd/popd here is not really necessary, I just got used to it, because it allows switching directories in a script without getting lost.
Thank you for the explanation and thanks again for the review. Cheers
FEDORA-2020-9a04c41ac9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9a04c41ac9
FEDORA-2020-413183128c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-413183128c
FEDORA-2020-bebc4c1ff7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bebc4c1ff7
FEDORA-2020-413183128c has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-413183128c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-413183128c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-9a04c41ac9 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-9a04c41ac9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9a04c41ac9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-de6cd5519f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-de6cd5519f
FEDORA-2020-e111837a32 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e111837a32
FEDORA-2020-fcd729be00 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fcd729be00
FEDORA-2020-e111837a32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e111837a32` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e111837a32 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-de6cd5519f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-de6cd5519f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-de6cd5519f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-fcd729be00 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-fcd729be00` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fcd729be00 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e111837a32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-fcd729be00 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-de6cd5519f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.