Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/overlayfs-tools/overlayfs-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/overlayfs-tools/overlayfs-tools-0-0.1.20200817git77bf3f7.fc33.src.rpm Description: OverlayFS is the union filesystem provided by Linux kernel. This program comes provides three tools: * vacuum - remove duplicated files in upperdir where copy_up is done but the file is not actually modified (see the sentence "the copy_up may turn out to be unnecessary" in the Linux documentation). This may reduce the size of upperdir without changing lowerdir or overlay. * diff - show the list of actually changed files (the difference between overlay and lowerdir). A file with its type changed (i.e. from symbolic link to regular file) will shown as deleted then added, rather than modified. Similarly, for a opaque directory in upperdir, the corresponding directory in lowerdir (if exists) will be shown as entirely deleted, and a new directory with the same name added. File permission/owner changes will be simply shown as modified. * merge - merge down the changes from upperdir to lowerdir. Unlike aubrsync for AuFS which bypasses the union filesystem mechanism, overlayfs-utils emulates the OverlayFS logic, which will be far more efficient. After this operation, upperdir will be empty and lowerdir will be the same as original overlay. * deref - copy changes from upperdir to uppernew while unfolding redirect directories and metacopy regular files, so that new upperdir is compatible with legacy overlayfs driver. For safety reasons, vacuum and merge will not actually modify the filesystem, but generate a shell script to do the changes instead. Fedora Account System Username: rathann
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary overlay 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
This is a nice, clean package, and I found only a few minor issues. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated - The patch for errno.h should have been submitted upstream. I did it; you should link https://github.com/kmxz/overlayfs-tools/issues/14 in a comment above the patch. - You might want to patch https://github.com/kmxz/overlayfs-tools/pull/13 as well, although this is strictly optional. - A man page would be nice. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages. For a quick and adequate approach, you can use help2man: BuildRequires: help2man then, after %make_build: help2man --no-info --version-string=%{shortcommit} --output=overlay.1 ./overlay in %install: install -dm755 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 install -pm644 overlay %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 and in %files: %{_mandir}/man1/overlay.1* Or, if you are willing to keep it updated as needed, I can supply a hand-written man page with slightly nicer formatting. ===== 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: [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: "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1916190-overlayfs- tools/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 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]: 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. [!]: 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. Properly documented that tests require elevated privileges [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: overlayfs-tools-0-0.1.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm overlayfs-tools-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm overlayfs-tools-debugsource-0-0.1.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm overlayfs-tools-0-0.1.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.src.rpm overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary overlay overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: overlayfs-tools-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary overlay 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kmxz/overlayfs-tools//archive/77bf3f7ad3e7b834a15e2166780167646d51cce8/overlayfs-tools-77bf3f7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8737544b29fac6099f6cb78dab945add3b6a179a9b98ce6df39855c2930b14b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8737544b29fac6099f6cb78dab945add3b6a179a9b98ce6df39855c2930b14b Requires -------- overlayfs-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) overlayfs-tools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): overlayfs-tools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- overlayfs-tools: overlayfs-tools overlayfs-tools(x86-64) overlayfs-tools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) overlayfs-tools-debuginfo overlayfs-tools-debuginfo(x86-64) overlayfs-tools-debugsource: overlayfs-tools-debugsource overlayfs-tools-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1916190 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Java, fonts, Ruby, Haskell, Python, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! (In reply to code from comment #2) [...] > - The patch for errno.h should have been submitted upstream. I did it; you > should link https://github.com/kmxz/overlayfs-tools/issues/14 in a comment > above the patch. Done. > - You might want to patch https://github.com/kmxz/overlayfs-tools/pull/13 as > well, although this is strictly optional. Done. > - A man page would be nice. See [...] > Or, if you are willing to keep it updated as needed, I can supply a > hand-written man page with slightly nicer formatting. That would be best. I'll forward it upstream, too. I'll use help2man approach you suggested in the meantime.
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/overlayfs-tools/overlayfs-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/overlayfs-tools/overlayfs-tools-0-0.2.20200817git77bf3f7.fc33.src.rpm * Wed Mar 10 2021 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm> 0-0.2.20200817git77bf3f7 - add link to upstream issue for errno fix - fix %s appearing in help message instead of program name - generate manpage with help2man and include it
Can you please check your latest SRPM link? I’m getting a 404 error.
Apologies, I forgot to do the actual upload. Done now.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: [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: "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1916190-overlayfs- tools/20210312/1916190-overlayfs-tools/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 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]: 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: overlayfs-tools-0-0.2.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm overlayfs-tools-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm overlayfs-tools-debugsource-0-0.2.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm overlayfs-tools-0-0.2.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.src.rpm overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: overlayfs-tools-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200817git77bf3f7.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upperdir -> uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lowerdir -> wildflower overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aubrsync -> subbranch overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deref -> defer, deffer, refer overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uppernew -> upper new, upper-new, uppercut overlayfs-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacopy -> meta copy, meta-copy, metacarpal 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kmxz/overlayfs-tools//archive/77bf3f7ad3e7b834a15e2166780167646d51cce8/overlayfs-tools-77bf3f7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8737544b29fac6099f6cb78dab945add3b6a179a9b98ce6df39855c2930b14b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8737544b29fac6099f6cb78dab945add3b6a179a9b98ce6df39855c2930b14b Requires -------- overlayfs-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) overlayfs-tools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): overlayfs-tools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- overlayfs-tools: overlayfs-tools overlayfs-tools(x86-64) overlayfs-tools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) overlayfs-tools-debuginfo overlayfs-tools-debuginfo(x86-64) overlayfs-tools-debugsource: overlayfs-tools-debugsource overlayfs-tools-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1916190 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, Perl, PHP, R, Java, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Looks great! All issues are resolved, and the package is approved. Thanks.
Created attachment 1763177 [details] Hand-written man page Here is the hand-written man page I promised you. See https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/man-pages.7.html and https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/groff_man.7.html for documentation that can help you maintain it. Also, one of the biggest gotchas in hand-writing man pages is that there should be a newline after every period to get proper whitespace. Otherwise it should be simple enough to modify as needed, if upstream does not choose to adopt and maintain it.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/overlayfs-tools
Imported and built in rawhide.