Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/rust-blsctl.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/rust-blsctl-0.2.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options. Fedora Account System Username: javierm
Taking a rough first look at this, there are some things that definitely need to be addressed: 1) Requires: rpm-libs This needs to be moved into the package that actually contains the binary (from line 22 to 31). 2) Cargo.toml specifies that this crate ships a shared library for use from C. But the dylib is not built, and the header file is not installed. Is this intentional? 3) Cargo.toml specifies license = "LGPL-2.1-or-later", but the crate contains both GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ license texts. Which license applies to what? Looking at the license headers, it seems like the "blsctl" binary is GPLv3+ and the crate library component is LGPLv2+. The License tags in the .spec file need to reflect that. Assuming my assessment is correct, you'll need to add a "License: GPLv3+" tag to the binary package (line 32).
The "rpm-libs" dependency should not be required, since it should auto-generate librpm dependencies.
Thanks a lot Fabio and Neal for the feedback. I'll address the issues you pointed out.
A second version of this can be found here: Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v2/rust-blsctl.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v2/rust-blsctl-0.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Changes in v2: - Add the proper licence tags to the sub-packages for the binary and library creates. - Bump create version to 2.2.0, that contains a fix for the library crate definition. - Remove the rpm-libs dependency.
(In reply to Javier Martinez Canillas from comment #4) [snip] > - Bump create version to 2.2.0, that contains a fix for the library crate > definition. I meant 0.2.2 here.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= Need to include both license files in the %{crate} -devel and subpackages. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/blsctl/0.2.2/download#/blsctl-0.2.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 89dc8e982ab699dd1a9f12f730e0e4f657cf5d86c915df4ec2876a229f029d5d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89dc8e982ab699dd1a9f12f730e0e4f657cf5d86c915df4ec2876a229f029d5d Requires -------- blsctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librpmio.so.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-blsctl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-blsctl+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(blsctl) rust-blsctl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- blsctl: blsctl blsctl(x86-64) rust-blsctl-devel: crate(blsctl) rust-blsctl-devel rust-blsctl+default-devel: crate(blsctl/default) rust-blsctl+default-devel rust-blsctl-debugsource: rust-blsctl-debugsource rust-blsctl-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1886464 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, R, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I.e. something like the lines marked "+" are missing: %files -n %{crate} +%license LICENSE.gpl3 %{_bindir}/blsctl %files devel +%license LICENSE.lgpl2 %{cargo_registry}/%{crate}-%{version_no_tilde}/
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7) > I.e. something like the lines marked "+" are missing: > > %files -n %{crate} > +%license LICENSE.gpl3 > %{_bindir}/blsctl > > %files devel > +%license LICENSE.lgpl2 > %{cargo_registry}/%{crate}-%{version_no_tilde}/ Thanks again for the feedback. There is a v3 that fixes this: Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v3/rust-blsctl.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v3/rust-blsctl-0.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks! Package APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-blsctl