Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/Flopgen/Flopgen.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/Flopgen/Flopgen-0.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Flopgen is a tool for automatic creation of FAT-formatted floppy disk images with user-supplied files. This program should be especially useful for people who need to transfer files frequently between their main machines and emulated/virtualised legacy systems with no or unreliable CD support. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58884726
Looks like a good start. This is not a full review, just a couple of things I noticed at first glance. It looks like the bundled FatFs has a “custom” BSD-like license. Since it is not on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses, please get an opinion from legal.org regarding whether it is acceptable and what it should be called. Whatever this license is, it must be added to the License field; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. Since you use cli11 as a header-only library, you must BuildRequire cli11-static. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries.
- Use flopgen without capitalization Name: flopgen […] %autosetup -n Flopgen-%{version} -p1 - Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz → Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Add license for FatFs - See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZWKCN4OZOJ3OJNI74PYEAODHSNKSKA4E/ 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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* BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/flopgen/review- flopgen/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 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 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: flopgen-0.1.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm flopgen-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm flopgen-debugsource-0.1.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm flopgen-0.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm flopgen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualised -> visualized flopgen.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flopgen flopgen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualised -> visualized 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/flopgen/flopgen.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/flopgen/flopgen-0.1.0-2.fc35.src.rpm Changelog - Rename to flopgen - Fix license - Add BuildRequires on cli11-static
Package approved.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo flopgen 1912169 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32702
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flopgen
FEDORA-2021-75d4e65e39 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-75d4e65e39
FEDORA-2021-77a8abf73a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-77a8abf73a
FEDORA-2021-1f3ac233a1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1f3ac233a1
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-516fcf2ad9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-516fcf2ad9
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-516fcf2ad9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-516fcf2ad9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-77a8abf73a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-77a8abf73a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-77a8abf73a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1f3ac233a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1f3ac233a1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1f3ac233a1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-75d4e65e39 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-75d4e65e39 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-75d4e65e39 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-77a8abf73a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-1f3ac233a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-75d4e65e39 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-516fcf2ad9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.