Spec URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk.spec SRPM URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk-0.4.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Collection of make-files implementing a system similar to auto-tools, but without the generated files that make understanding system behavior harder. . Highlights include: . - Describe programs, test programs, static libraries, shared libraries, development headers, manual pages and more - Use familiar targets like "all", "check", "install" and "clean" - Works out of the box on popular distributions of Linux and MacOS - Friendly to distribution packaging expecting auto-tools - Compile with gcc, clang, tcc or the open-watcom compilers - Cross compile with gcc and open-watcom - Efficient and incremental, including the install target Fedora Account System Username: zyga
Taking this review.
Thanks Neal! I've updated the package for the 0.5 release which made packaging even more straightforward. The new URLs are: Spec URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk.spec SRPM URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk-0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm
> Source0: https://github.com/zyga/zmk/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz This can be shortened to "%{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz" Also, I see that you GPG sign your tarballs, you can also have their GPG signatures verified: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures > . > Highlights include: > . What are these "." for? > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT This should not be present, please remove it. > %{_mandir}/man5/zmk.*.5.gz > %{_mandir}/man5/z.mk.5.gz Man pages can be compressed in gz, xz, zstd, or nothing at all, so just use "5*" here Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages > * Wed Feb 03 2021 Zygmunt Krynicki - 0.5-1 > - New upstream release > - Simplify prep and build steps Changelog is not exactly in the correct format (missing email address): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
Thank you for the review Neal. I really appreciate this! (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > > Source0: https://github.com/zyga/zmk/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > This can be shortened to > "%{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz" Done > Also, I see that you GPG sign your tarballs, you can also have their GPG > signatures verified: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_verifying_signatures I wasn't familiar with how this works in Fedora, thank you. Done > What are these "." for? My Debian eyes didn't even see them. Removed. > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT I'm not entirely sure how I got this. Removed. > > %{_mandir}/man5/zmk.*.5.gz > > %{_mandir}/man5/z.mk.5.gz > > Man pages can be compressed in gz, xz, zstd, or nothing at all, so just use > "5*" here Done, thanks! > > * Wed Feb 03 2021 Zygmunt Krynicki - 0.5-1 > > - New upstream release > > - Simplify prep and build steps > > Changelog is not exactly in the correct format (missing email address): > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs Corrected I've updated both the .spec and the SRPM under. The URLs are unchanged.
> %{_includedir}/zmk/*.mk > %{_includedir}/zmk/pvs-filter.awk This should be simplified to just "%{_includedir}/zmk/"
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > > %{_includedir}/zmk/*.mk > > %{_includedir}/zmk/pvs-filter.awk > > This should be simplified to just "%{_includedir}/zmk/" Hmm? As in the whole folder?
(In reply to Zygmunt Krynicki from comment #6) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > > > %{_includedir}/zmk/*.mk > > > %{_includedir}/zmk/pvs-filter.awk > > > > This should be simplified to just "%{_includedir}/zmk/" > > Hmm? As in the whole folder? Yes.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #7) > (In reply to Zygmunt Krynicki from comment #6) > > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > > > > %{_includedir}/zmk/*.mk > > > > %{_includedir}/zmk/pvs-filter.awk > > > > > > This should be simplified to just "%{_includedir}/zmk/" > > > > Hmm? As in the whole folder? > > Yes. Done. This is somewhat surprising, as I assumed that a "naked" %{_includedir}/zmk Is somewhat similar to %dir, reading the manual I see I was mistaken. Corrected. Both the SRPM and .spec for 0.5-1 have been updated and sent to the same place: Spec URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk.spec SRPM URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk-0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm
Is the current packaging correct?
One last thing: > %{_includedir}/zmk Change this to "%{_includedir}/zmk/" just so that it's clear it is a directory.
Done, updated both the .spec and the SRPM file.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1922858-zmk/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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: zmk-0.5-1.fc35.noarch.rpm zmk-0.5-1.fc35.src.rpm zmk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc, gulch zmk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcc -> cc, tic, t cc zmk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US watcom -> watchman zmk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc, gulch zmk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcc -> cc, tic, t cc zmk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US watcom -> watchman 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- zmk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc, gulch zmk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcc -> cc, tic, t cc zmk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US watcom -> watchman 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://gpg.zygoon.pl/gpgkey-B76CED9B45CAF1557D271A6A2894E93A28C67B47.gpg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5da7f03c6840f88ee8e28edc6a191c14b13e94836e5120a780bfff9f6ec37cbf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5da7f03c6840f88ee8e28edc6a191c14b13e94836e5120a780bfff9f6ec37cbf https://github.com/zyga/zmk/releases/download/v0.5/zmk-0.5.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 37405707d02e2e65951176dccdab04bd0122022d9c553f5ded17a81f233e1863 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 37405707d02e2e65951176dccdab04bd0122022d9c553f5ded17a81f233e1863 https://github.com/zyga/zmk/releases/download/v0.5/zmk-0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b006f312aba2c6d7bc6d11e08709da7ce4b7dac71612a4a66491797158f1c30b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b006f312aba2c6d7bc6d11e08709da7ce4b7dac71612a4a66491797158f1c30b Requires -------- zmk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gawk make Provides -------- zmk: zmk Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1922858 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Python, Java, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Everything looks good to me. PACKAGE APPROVED.
Woot. Thank you for the advice and for your time :)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zmk
FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09
FEDORA-2021-3c813be767 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3c813be767
FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-3c813be767 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3c813be767` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3c813be767 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-3c813be767 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.