Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/pemensik/rpms/mk-files/raw/master/f/mk-files.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3721/44963721/mk-files-20200505-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: The mk-files package provides some bmake macros derived from the NetBSD bsd.*.mk macros. These macros allow the creation of simple Makefiles to build all kinds of targets, including, for example, C/C++ programs and/or shared libraries. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44963721 Fedora Account System Username: pemensik
This package was already in Fedora, but was orphaned for too long. Check [1]. 1. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mk-files
I'll review it
Issues: ======= - rpmlint shows the following errors for rpm: mk-files.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/mk/meta2deps.py 555 mk-files.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/mk/meta2deps.sh 555 mk-files.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/mk/stage-install.sh 555 - please, request upstream to include license text(s) as a separate file ===== 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. [-]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/eam/tmp/mk-files/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 71680 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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 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. [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]: 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.
It was pointer by upstream author, that mk-files are distributed inside bmake[1] sources since year 2012. I verified this is correct and mk-files was used only by bmake package. Because they do not have to be separate package, I would make subpackage from bmake and close this review. They are not required to be separated anyomre. It should be noted that bmake has exactly the same license issue with missing license file. 1. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bmake