Spec URL: https://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/tmp/tree-pkg/tree-pkg.spec SRPM URL: https://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/tmp/tree-pkg/tree-pkg-1.8.0-9.fc36.src.rpm Description: The tree utility recursively displays the contents of directories in a tree-like format. Tree is basically a UNIX port of the DOS tree utility. Fedora Account System Username: kdudka This is a re-review request for a (partial) package rename of `tree` per the following guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process The source package has to be renamed due to limitations of Pagure and Gitlab: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7031 https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/4409 The binary package continues to be named `tree`, so this change is not observable by end users.
The srpm rename and the addition of the tree subpackage look good to me. This approach avoids the need for obsoletes/provides. However, fedora-review turned up a few unrelated items that need to be corrected. ================================================================================ The file strverscmp.c is licensed under LGPLv2+. This must be reflected in the License field, with a corresponding comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. I suggest: -License: GPLv2+ +# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except strverscmp.c which is LGPLv2+ +License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios ================================================================================ The LICENSE file must be marked as %license in %files. -%doc README LICENSE +%license LICENSE +%doc README ================================================================================ rpmlint found an incorrect FSF address in the LICENSE file. This doesn't need to be fixed in the package, but must be reported upstream. I also suggest including a comment in the spec file about the upstream status. tree.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tree/LICENSE https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address ================================================================================ All patches should be sent upstream and the spec file should have a comment regarding their upstream status. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #1) > The srpm rename and the addition of the tree subpackage look good to me. > This approach avoids the need for obsoletes/provides. However, > fedora-review turned up a few unrelated items that need to be corrected. Thanks for review! > ================================================================================ > > The file strverscmp.c is licensed under LGPLv2+. This must be reflected in > the License field, with a corresponding comment explaining the multiple > licensing breakdown. I suggest: > > -License: GPLv2+ > +# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except strverscmp.c which is LGPLv2+ > +License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios Fixed. > ================================================================================ > > The LICENSE file must be marked as %license in %files. > > -%doc README LICENSE > +%license LICENSE > +%doc README Fixed. > ================================================================================ > > rpmlint found an incorrect FSF address in the LICENSE file. This doesn't > need to be fixed in the package, but must be reported upstream. I also > suggest including a comment in the spec file about the upstream status. > > tree.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tree/LICENSE > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Fixed. > ================================================================================ > > All patches should be sent upstream and the spec file should have a comment > regarding their upstream status. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ Unfortunately, there is no upstream bug tracker or mailing-list we could refer to. I have never received any reply from upstream on the tree-static-analysis.patch posted in 2018: bug #1602718 comment #2 Not sure about the other patches that I inherited from the previous maintainer. There is no info about upstream status in the corresponding bugs in Red Hat Bugzilla: bug #812934 bug #948991 bug #997937 Tim, could you please confirm that fixes for the above bugs have been sent upstream?
I can't find any evidence that they were.
Thanks for confirmation! I have submitted the remaining patches upstream today, with Tim in CC (as author of the patches) and added the `Sent upstream via email ...` comments in the spec file. I believe that all review items have been resolved.
Kamil, can you post new spec file and srpm links for me to re-run fedora-review against?
Oh my mistake, you edited comment 0 to have the latest URLs. I've re-run fedora-review, and everything looks good. Package approved. 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/carl/packaging/reviews/tree-pkg/2001467-tree- pkg/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tree [x]: 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]: 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]: 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: tree-1.8.0-9.fc36.x86_64.rpm tree-pkg-debugsource-1.8.0-9.fc36.x86_64.rpm tree-pkg-1.8.0-9.fc36.src.rpm tree.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C tree 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Perfect. Thanks for review! I have requested a git repo for the new name: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/37041
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-pkg
Fedora commits: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-pkg/c/3dcdaacade98cf378fea8f11b4956d50736dd13f?branch=rawhide https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-pkg/c/5d9b165f99ec68ecdf62a6ca772e0e160d37d091?branch=rawhide https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-pkg/c/18054831f2841ca3793c562b9e411d6115b716c2?branch=rawhide
The original `tree` package has been retired in rawhide: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree/c/549b345653a52bf57b66e0e8ea707b28c7b99733?branch=rawhide