Spec URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/c4project.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/c4project-0-1.20210711gita160164.fc34.src.rpm Description: Useful CMake scripts. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71708124 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71708131 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71708133 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71708768 This will be a build dependency for https://github.com/biojppm/c4core/ and, ultimately, for https://github.com/biojppm/rapidyaml/. Upstream uses this package as a git submodule and does not directly support system-wide installation (which explains the lack of versioning and the lack of a clear name), so the chosen installation path is arbitrary. Packages that use it as as a build dependency will just have to replace the directory for the git submodule in their source trees with a symlink to the directory installed by this package—easy enough.
URL typo fix: Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4project.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4project-0-1.20210711gita160164.fc34.src.rpm
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - It seems like the Requires should be specific to the consuming package, not universally required for all of these cmake macros. Are they really necessary for any use of this package? Should they be Recommends rather than Requires? - Nitpick: s/paractice/practice/ on line 41 ===== 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. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above. I am not sure they are correct. [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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). See above. [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests. [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]: 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: c4project-0-1.20210711gita160164.fc36.noarch.rpm c4project-0-1.20210711gita160164.fc36.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/biojppm/cmake/archive/a160164db413081472fbebb634656c8a6c1c3e5c/cmake-a160164db413081472fbebb634656c8a6c1c3e5c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e08f0425d268718c85070a1a31b5b86d898b82cbe0f886258fea1eb01692e519 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e08f0425d268718c85070a1a31b5b86d898b82cbe0f886258fea1eb01692e519 Requires -------- c4project (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem doxygen python3dist(breathe) python3dist(sphinx) python3dist(sphinx-rtd-theme) Provides -------- c4project: c4project Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981138 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ruby, C/C++, fonts, R, PHP, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> It seems like the Requires should be specific to the consuming package, not > universally required for all of these cmake macros. Are they really > necessary for any use of this package? Should they be Recommends rather than > Requires? I was torn on this, because the macros in this package generate the documentation templates that have these dependencies. I don’t like the idea that, when packaging something that depends on this package, you should have to dig through the contents of this package to find out what dependencies you need to add for documentation generation to work. On the other hand, it is true that dependent packages are likely to use Doxygen or Sphinx but not both, and each is a pretty heavy dependency to add unconditionally. Making the dependencies weak seems like it could be reasonable. It won’t make much difference in practice, though, since the package will mainly be used as a build dependency and weak dependencies will be installed in mock/koji. I think I’m going to add -sphinx and -doxygen subpackages that are metapackages bringing in the necessary additional dependencies. That way the base install of the macros will not bring in a documentation system; this package can be responsible for tracking the necessary themes and such as they potentially change over time; and the complexity of this package is only slightly increased.
On second look, it seems like the Doxygen machinery is unconditionally included from c4Project.cmake, while the sphinx dependencies may be bogus—they seem to be showing up only in requirements_doc.txt. In that case it may be right to keep Doxygen as a hard dependency but drop the Sphinx dependencies. I’ll take a closer look and follow up.
Ok, the Sphinx stuff is bogus and the actual search for Doxygen is conditionalized. I think I’ve come around to the view that all of the Requires should be the responsibility of dependent packages after all.
This should address your comments. I have also opted in to rpmautospec. New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20210815/c4project-0-1.20210711gita160164.fc34.src.rpm New spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20210815/c4project.spec Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73907068 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73907192 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73907346 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73907480
I think you made the right decision regarding doxygen. This all looks good now. This package is APPROVED.
Thanks for the high-quality review! Repository requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/c4project
FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf
FEDORA-2021-49c259225d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-49c259225d
FEDORA-2021-49c259225d 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-2021-49c259225d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-49c259225d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf 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-a19a6affaf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-49c259225d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.