Spec URL: https://git.sr.ht/~fnux/hikari-rpm/blob/12bafe7020151cdd30c6fba6e6a2bb01ce9a4cbd/mk-files/mk-files.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fnux/hikari/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01848058-mk-files/mk-files-20200505-1.fc34.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. Fedora Account System Username: fnux Note: this package is already present in dist-git, but has been retired a while ago. I'll need to open a ticket to releng once this review is accepted.
Spec URL: https://git.sr.ht/~fnux/hikari-rpm/blob/c8b0ad7b1c393c1522e75abe71ae3693d4f1103d/mk-files/mk-files.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fnux/hikari/fedora-33-x86_64/01848148-mk-files/mk-files-20200505-2.fc33.src.rpm ^ Woops. Old package I had around for a while, and missed some rpmlint errors, now fixed.
These days, the guidelines around licensing are a lot stricter (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/) than when the package was originally added. The license for most of the files does not appear to actually be BSD. For example, from autoconf.mk: # @(#) Copyright (c) 1996-2009, Simon J. Gerraty # # This file is provided in the hope that it will # be of use. There is absolutely NO WARRANTY. # Permission to copy, redistribute or otherwise # use this file is hereby granted provided that # the above copyright notice and this notice are # left intact. Can you identify this license? If it doesn’t correspond to a license in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses, you’ll need an opinion from legal.org. Also relevant are the guidelines about requesting upstream to include license text in a separate file.
- Not needed: rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} - Use -p to keep timestamps: install -m 755 -d ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/mk - Try asking upstream to include a clear separate license file
Spec URL: https://git.sr.ht/~fnux/hikari-rpm/blob/472a39ad5bf130e7ab187309575f986de8f79130/mk-files/mk-files.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6097/64036097/mk-files-20200505-3.fc33.src.rpm I mailed upstream about the licensing issue.
- sed -i -e 's/env python/python2/g' meta2deps.py Python 2 is obsolete in Fedora and thus any package depending on it shall not be packaged unless an exemption is given by the FPC. It seems the script is written in Python 3. Waiting for legal input there: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/O7EMUN2NYB2TSX5C2KE7YLBDZKHWP5GK/ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mk-files See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [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. [?]: 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/bob/packaging/review/mk-files/review-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 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 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. [-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mk-files-20200505-3.fc35.noarch.rpm mk-files-20200505-3.fc35.src.rpm mk-files.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bmake -> bake, make, brake mk-files.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmake -> bake, make, brake mk-files.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsd -> BSD, bad, bed mk-files.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bmake -> bake, make, brake mk-files.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmake -> bake, make, brake mk-files.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsd -> BSD, bad, bed mk-files.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mk-20200505.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Spec URL: https://paste.sr.ht/blob/348c65763746625d7a647986fe33025aac7f6869 SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5575/64195575/mk-files-20210321-1.fc33.src.rpm * Fixed the python2 issue (I think I automatically thought that `env python` was python2 - indeed seems to be python3). * Upstream kindly released a new version with appropriate LICENSE file.o
Package approved.
Many thanks again :-)