Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/blob/master/atinout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01624721-atinout/atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Atinout is a program that reads a list of AT commands. It sends those commands one by one to the modem, waiting for the final result code for the currently executing command before continuing with the next command in the list. The output from the commands is captured. Fedora Account System Username: torbuntu Successful build on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1624721/ Hello! I've successfully built the atinout program for Fedora Rawhide to be used on devices with an attached Modem.
> Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/blob/master/atinout.spec This link leads to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition of the spec. Please use "raw file" links. > Patch0: 0001-disable-fallthrough.patch Add a comment explaining what the patch does. >%autosetup -p1 -n atinout-%{version} %{name}-%{version} is the default value for -n, you can omit it. >%build >make all %{?_smp_mflags} 1. Use the %make_build macro. 2. Call the %set_build_flags macro before calling make. >%install >%makeinstall DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT The %makeinstall macro is deprecated. Consider using %make_install instead. >%clean >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Don't do this. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections >%files >%doc %{_mandir}/man1/atinout.1.gz 1. Man pages should not be marked as %doc. 2. Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match any compression method (including no compression at all). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages >%doc README atinout.1.html gplv3.txt logo/atinout.svg "gplv3.txt" should be marked as "%license", not "%doc".
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/raw/master/atinout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01637157-atinout/atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Successful build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1637157/ Description: Atinout is a program that reads a list of AT commands. It sends those commands one by one to the modem, waiting for the final result code for the currently executing command before continuing with the next command in the list. The output from the commands is captured. Fedora Account System Username: torbuntu Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed the issues.
- The DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT is included in the macro already: %make_install - Not needed, it is the default: %defattr(-,root,root,-) - Patch the makefile so that Fedora CFLAGS and LDFLAGS aren't overridden by: CFLAGS = -W -Wall -Wextra -Werror \ -DVERSION=\"$(VERSION)\" \ -g LDFLAGS = Actually just remove these lines entirely so they don't interfere with our flags. 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]: 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/atinout/review-atinout/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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 40960 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 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]: 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: atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm atinout-debuginfo-0.9.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm atinout-debugsource-0.9.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm atinout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio atinout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out atinout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio atinout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/raw/master/atinout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01640697-atinout/atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Successful build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1640697/ Thanks for the review! I addressed all the issues, however the CFLAGS still needed a version flag in order to build, so in the Makefile I patched it to only set the version using `+=` so now it includes all the CFLAGS from fedora still.
LGTM, package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/atinout