Spec URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm.spec SRPM URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.src.rpm Description: This package provides an extension to the gtkmm library. It contains widgets which are primarily useful for technical and scientifical purposes. Fedora Account System Username: nphilipp
This is a prerequisite to lv2-eq10q, here's the corresponding review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2022555
A couple of questions up front: - This was previously packaged and was retired after it was orphaned. Are you following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming? - Are you trying to support EPEL8 and/or EPEL7 from this spec file? The answer will determine what feedback a reviewer should give regarding obsolete macros.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #2) > A couple of questions up front: > > - This was previously packaged and was retired after it was orphaned. Are > you following > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/ > Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming? Hah I'm trying to, but I missed #2 -- announcing this on devel. To my excuse, it was late. 😂 > - Are you trying to support EPEL8 and/or EPEL7 from this spec file? The > answer will > determine what feedback a reviewer should give regarding obsolete macros. No, I don't target either EPEL7/8.
Just sent out the announcement.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec. - This is the first time I have seen rpmautospec combined with package unretirement. It makes sense to do. Just make sure that you end up with a release number higher than the last build (-34) to avoid unintended downgrades, using the -b option to %autorelease if needed. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plotmm See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names OK; this is a review for unretirement. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1075200 bytes in 174 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation You should make a new -doc subpackage. I suggest something like: %package doc Summary: Documentation for plotmm BuildArch: noarch %description doc %{summary}. %files doc %license COPYING %doc doc/html (and remove the HTML documentation from the -devel package). You can keep AUTHORS, ChangeLog, and README in the base package or move them to -doc at your discretion. - Be warned that modern Doxygen-generated HTML documentation is not suitable for packaging, as it has relatively intractable issues with bundled and minified JavaScript. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 for details. However, the ancient pre-generated documentation here is OK: it lacks JavaScript, and the CSS is not minified. If you ever re-build the documentation in the RPM build, which is possible to do, then you will need to deal with this. The best solution is probably to build a PDF instead of HTML. See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cairomm/blob/rawhide/f/cairomm.spec for an example of doing this. (The example also builds the HTML with the JavaScript stripped out, but that is only so that DevHelp documentation—which plotmm does not provide—keeps working.) - The option “--enable-docs” to the configure script is not doing anything and should be removed. - Since the dependency on gtkmm is via pkgconfig, please change BuildRequires: gtkmm24-devel >= 2.4.0 to BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtkmm-2.4) and Requires: gtkmm24-devel to Requires: pkgconfig(gtkmm-2.4) See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/, and also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies regarding versioned dependencies. - While the URL only works with plain HTTP, the Source0 URL still works with HTTPS. Please adjust it to HTTPS. - This project is thoroughly dead upstream. It’s okay to keep packaging it, but you will have a higher burden as maintainer should any issues arise. - You should not glob the shared library in a way that would miss an soversion bump. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files. Plus, it’s best not to use extremely broad globs under shared directories. There are some arguments for not doing so in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_explicit_lists. At least change: %{_libdir}/*.so.* to: %{_libdir}/*.so.0* but preferably: %{_libdir}/libplotmm.so.0* or: %{_libdir}/libplotmm.so.0 %{_libdir}/libplotmm.so.0.* - This is obsolete in all current Fedora releases and should be removed: %ldconfig_scriptlets - While the make invocations are acceptable, it would be even better to write make %{?_smp_mflags} as %make_build and make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install as %make_install - This is a nit-pick, but find %{buildroot} -type f -name "*.la" -exec rm -f {} ';' could be more simply written as find '%{buildroot}' -type f -name '*.la' -delete - The spec file contains mixed spaces and tabs. You can fix it with: sed -r -i 's/\t/ /g' plotmm.spec See rpmlint diagnostics: plotmm.spec:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 44) plotmm.spec:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 44) - I think all of these rpmlint messages are spurious and require no action: plotmm.src: W: strange-permission plotmm.spec 600 plotmm.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on plotmm*/plotmm-libs/libplotmm* = 0.1.2 plotmm.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0 libplotmm.so.0.0.0 plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.png /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.png plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__coll__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__inherit__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.map:/usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.map:/usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.png /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.png plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.png /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.png - Simple man pages explaining what the examples do would be nice, but are not required. See rpmlint diagnostics: plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-curves plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-simple and also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages. - This should be reported upstream, although given plotmm seems to be abandoned, I wouldn’t expect doing so to accomplish anything. plotmm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/plotmm/COPYING You are required to report this, but you must not patch the file yourself; see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address. ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 189 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/licensecheck.txt All files with licenses other than LGPLv2 belong to the build system and do not contribute to the License of the binary RPMs. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as mentioned) [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]: 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plotmm- devel , plotmm-examples [?]: 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. Upstream provides 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1198080 bytes in /usr/share Documentation should be moved to a noarch -doc subpackage. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sourceforge.net/plotmm/plotmm-0.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 896bb729eb9cad5f3188d72304789dd7a86fdae66020ac0632fe3bc66abe9653 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 896bb729eb9cad5f3188d72304789dd7a86fdae66020ac0632fe3bc66abe9653 Requires -------- plotmm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) plotmm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gtkmm24-devel libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(gtkmm-2.4) plotmm(x86-64) plotmm-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libgtkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) plotmm(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) plotmm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): plotmm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- plotmm: libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) plotmm plotmm(x86-64) plotmm-devel: pkgconfig(plotmm) plotmm-devel plotmm-devel(x86-64) plotmm-examples: plotmm-examples plotmm-examples(x86-64) plotmm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libplotmm.so.0.0.0-0.1.2-2.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) plotmm-debuginfo plotmm-debuginfo(x86-64) plotmm-debugsource: plotmm-debugsource plotmm-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/srpm/plotmm.spec 2021-11-13 08:49:05.052705243 -0500 +++ /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/srpm-unpacked/plotmm.spec 2021-11-11 19:10:50.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: plotmm Version: 0.1.2 @@ -80,3 +89,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 12 2021 Nils Philippsen <nils> 0.1.2-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Thu Nov 11 2021 Nils Philippsen <nils> 0.1.2-1 +- Revert "Orphaned for 6+ weeks" Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2022554 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Python, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 5 plotmm.src: W: strange-permission plotmm.spec 600 plotmm.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-curves plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-simple plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation plotmm.spec:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 44) plotmm.spec:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 44) plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on plotmm*/plotmm-libs/libplotmm* = 0.1.2 plotmm.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0 libplotmm.so.0.0.0 plotmm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/plotmm/COPYING plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.png /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.png plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__coll__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__inherit__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.map:/usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.map:/usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.png /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.png plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.png /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.png 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 20 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Hey Ben, thanks for reviewing this! (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #5) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - Dist tag is present. > > OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec. I used %autorelease/%autochangelog for this one in part to identify the warts with reviewing an rpmautospec-enabled package. Sorry for making you a guinea pig. 🤷😉 https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/238 > - This is the first time I have seen rpmautospec combined with package > unretirement. It makes sense to do. Just make sure that you end up with a > release number higher than the last build (-34) to avoid unintended > downgrades, using the -b option to %autorelease if needed. Oh, Koji just wouldn't allow me to build a package of the same N-V-R again (we have plotmm in F34, so this wouldn't have gone unnoticed). I didn't consider unretirement when cooking up the release counting algorithm, but adding -b to compensate shouldn't be necessary: https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/237 > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 1075200 bytes in 174 files. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_documentation A -doc subpackage is for end user documentation, so it probably should be -devel-doc. Anyway, while it's not mandatory to have large documentation in a subpackage – you just should consider it… 😏 – it makes sense to do so, -devel would only account for ~84k without the docs and that should make builds quicker. > - Be warned that modern Doxygen-generated HTML documentation is not suitable > for packaging, as it has relatively intractable issues with bundled and > minified JavaScript. See > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 > for details. However, the ancient pre-generated documentation here is OK: > it > lacks JavaScript, and the CSS is not minified. > > If you ever re-build the documentation in the RPM build, which is possible > to > do, then you will need to deal with this. The best solution is probably to > build a PDF instead of HTML. See > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cairomm/blob/rawhide/f/cairomm.spec for > an > example of doing this. (The example also builds the HTML with the > JavaScript > stripped out, but that is only so that DevHelp documentation—which plotmm > does not provide—keeps working.) Wow, I wasn't aware of that issue and it's a shame it didn't reach a better conclusion. This really should be spelled out in the packaging guidelines. Dodged a bullet there… 😬 > - The option “--enable-docs” to the configure script is not doing anything > and > should be removed. Done. > - Since the dependency on gtkmm is via pkgconfig, please change > > BuildRequires: gtkmm24-devel >= 2.4.0 > > to > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtkmm-2.4) > > and > > Requires: gtkmm24-devel > > to > > Requires: pkgconfig(gtkmm-2.4) > > See > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > PkgConfigBuildRequires/, > and also > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_package_dependencies > regarding versioned dependencies. Done. > - While the URL only works with plain HTTP, the Source0 URL still works with > HTTPS. Please adjust it to HTTPS. Done. > - This project is thoroughly dead upstream. It’s okay to keep packaging it, > but > you will have a higher burden as maintainer should any issues arise. Thanks, I'm aware of it. 🙂 > - You should not glob the shared library in a way that would miss an > soversion > bump. See > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_listing_shared_library_files. > > Plus, it’s best not to use extremely broad globs under shared directories. > There are some arguments for not doing so in > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_explicit_lists. > > At least change: > > %{_libdir}/*.so.* > > to: > > %{_libdir}/*.so.0* > > but preferably: > > %{_libdir}/libplotmm.so.0* > > or: > > %{_libdir}/libplotmm.so.0 > %{_libdir}/libplotmm.so.0.* Done, even if I don't expect it to change its SONAME anytime soon (or anytime at all). > - This is obsolete in all current Fedora releases and should be removed: > > %ldconfig_scriptlets Done. > - While the make invocations are acceptable, it would be even better to write > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > > as > > %make_build > > and > > make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install > > as > > %make_install Done. > - This is a nit-pick, but > > find %{buildroot} -type f -name "*.la" -exec rm -f {} ';' > > could be more simply written as > > find '%{buildroot}' -type f -name '*.la' -delete Yes it can 😀, and done. > - The spec file contains mixed spaces and tabs. You can fix it with: > > sed -r -i 's/\t/ /g' plotmm.spec > > See rpmlint diagnostics: > > plotmm.spec:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: > line 44) > plotmm.spec:44: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: > line 44) Done. > - I think all of these rpmlint messages are spurious and require no action: > > plotmm.src: W: strange-permission plotmm.spec 600 That looks like `fedpkg srpm` created it that way. Will have to investigate this at some point. > plotmm.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 > plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation > plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on > plotmm*/plotmm-libs/libplotmm* = 0.1.2 Yeah, the %{?_isa}-ified Requires: is there. > plotmm.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0 > libplotmm.so.0.0.0 🤔 Maybe it's weirded out because the package is called `plotmm` instead of `libplotmm`? > plotmm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/ > class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.dot > /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph. > dot > … I'll run hardlink to deduplicate the installed files. > - Simple man pages explaining what the examples do would be nice, but are not > required. See rpmlint diagnostics: > > plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-curves > plotmm-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-simple > > and also > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages. To be honest, I'm not sure if anyone even needs these. At this point it's mere inertia to drag the example programs along. 😉 > - This should be reported upstream, although given plotmm seems to be > abandoned, I wouldn’t expect doing so to accomplish anything. > > plotmm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/licenses/plotmm/COPYING > > You are required to report this, but you must not patch the file yourself; > see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address. Filed here: https://sourceforge.net/p/plotmm/bugs/5/ Because there is no (new) git history, the release number didn't change. You can therefore find the updated files in the same places, I've moved the old versions into a subdirectory (…/old/1): Spec URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm.spec SRPM URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.src.rpm
Thanks! It sounds like you’ve taken care of everything. I’ll re-review as soon as I get a chance. Regarding the rpmlint warnings I pointed out as probably spurious, many of these show up on nearly every package. I think rpmlint 2.x was brought into Fedora 35 without a lot of testing on actual Fedora packages. It’s definitely useful to try to get these fixed in rpmlint, but so far I haven’t spent any time on doing so.
I skipped copying out the full review template for this iteration. I see just two issues with the latest submission: - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ I think this will be OK in practice. My local mock build is release 2.fc36, so the -devel-doc subpackage Obsoletes the -devel package, and the -devel package Obsoletes itself. As long as the release number is correct, there shouldn’t be a problem. I am not sure it is useful for the -devel package to explicitly Obsolete older versions of itself, although as far as I know it is not prohibited. It does produce an rpmlint warning: plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion plotmm-devel < 0.1.2-35 obsoletes plotmm-devel = 0.1.2-2.fc36 - The HTML documentation is not actually installed; you only create an “html” directory, but do not copy any documentation into it. I also noted: - You could, if you like, omit “%license COPYING” in the devel-doc subpackage, since it on the base package indirectly via the devel subpackage.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8) > I skipped copying out the full review template for this iteration. I see > just two issues with the latest submission: > > - Package installs properly. > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > I think this will be OK in practice. My local mock build is release 2.fc36, > so the -devel-doc subpackage Obsoletes the -devel package, and the -devel > package Obsoletes itself. As long as the release number is correct, there > shouldn’t be a problem. > > I am not sure it is useful for the -devel package to explicitly Obsolete > older versions of itself, although as far as I know it is not prohibited. This is a technique so that if a user had the -devel package installed (which included headers and docs), updating would get them both -devel (without docs) and -devel-docs. > It does produce an rpmlint warning: > > plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion plotmm-devel < 0.1.2-35 > obsoletes plotmm-devel = 0.1.2-2.fc36 Yeah, once this is properly resurrected, I need to take care of that it gets a suitably high release. > - The HTML documentation is not actually installed; you only create an “html” > directory, but do not copy any documentation into it. Oops. Fixed. 😃 > I also noted: > > - You could, if you like, omit “%license COPYING” in the devel-doc > subpackage, > since it on the base package indirectly via the devel subpackage. 👍 The updated files are in the same places, I've moved the old versions out of the way (…/old/2): Spec URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm.spec SRPM URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/plotmm/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.src.rpm
The package is APPROVED; however, please see the Issues section below, and make sure you fix the ownership of the %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc directory immediately upon unretirement. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Nothing owns %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc. Please change: %files devel-doc %doc %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc/html to %files devel-doc %doc %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc or otherwise ensure the devel-doc subpackage owns this directory. - The hardlink invocation did not eliminate the duplicate file warnings from rpmlint, because the files in question had duplicate content but not duplicate mtimes, so nothing was hardlinked. I think that, for packaging purposes, hardlink is in the right here, and it is better to ignore the rpmlint warnings (and optionally remove the call to hardlink as useless) than to add the “-t” option to hardlink. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps Notes: ====== - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ (OK as previously discussed) - Dist tag is present. (OK—rpmautospec) - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plotmm See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names (OK since the review is for unretirement) - Other rpmlint messages are either bogus (there are a lot of these) or previously discussed in this review. ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 189 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/licensecheck.txt All files with licenses other than LGPLv2 belong to the build system and do not contribute to the License of the binary RPMs. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel- doc [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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]: 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 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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plotmm- devel , plotmm-examples [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.15 starting (python version = 3.10.0, NVR = mock-2.15-1.fc35)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.15 INFO: Mock Version: 2.15 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debugsource-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-doc-0.1.2-2.fc36.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/ --releasever 36 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debugsource-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-doc-0.1.2-2.fc36.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://download.sourceforge.net/plotmm/plotmm-0.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 896bb729eb9cad5f3188d72304789dd7a86fdae66020ac0632fe3bc66abe9653 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 896bb729eb9cad5f3188d72304789dd7a86fdae66020ac0632fe3bc66abe9653 Requires -------- plotmm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) plotmm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(gtkmm-2.4) plotmm(aarch-64) plotmm-devel-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): plotmm-devel plotmm-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libgtkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) plotmm(aarch-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) plotmm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): plotmm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- plotmm: libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) plotmm plotmm(aarch-64) plotmm-devel: pkgconfig(plotmm) plotmm-devel plotmm-devel(aarch-64) plotmm-devel-doc: plotmm-devel-doc plotmm-examples: plotmm-examples plotmm-examples(aarch-64) plotmm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libplotmm.so.0.0.0-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug()(64bit) plotmm-debuginfo plotmm-debuginfo(aarch-64) plotmm-debugsource: plotmm-debugsource plotmm-debugsource(aarch-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/srpm/plotmm.spec 2021-11-25 22:11:31.396505161 -0500 +++ /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/srpm-unpacked/plotmm.spec 2021-11-25 18:01:59.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: plotmm Version: 0.1.2 @@ -97,3 +106,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Thu Nov 25 2021 Nils Philippsen <nils> 0.1.2-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Thu Nov 11 2021 Nils Philippsen <nils> 0.1.2-1 +- Revert "Orphaned for 6+ weeks" Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2022554 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, Haskell, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 8 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-curves-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-simple-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm.src: W: strange-permission plotmm.spec 600 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64 plotmm.aarch64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-curves-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-simple-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion plotmm-devel < 0.1.2-35 obsoletes plotmm-devel = 0.1.2-2.fc36 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided plotmm-devel plotmm-examples.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-curves plotmm-examples.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-simple plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-debugsource.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-examples.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: missing-dependency-on plotmm*/plotmm-libs/libplotmm* = 0.1.2 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64 plotmm.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0 libplotmm.so.0.0.0 plotmm.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/plotmm/COPYING plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__coll__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__inherit__graph.map plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency plotmm-devel plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/e6/b3aa522142df43ff2657a6d42925d98aa8645f ../../../.build-id/e6/b3aa522142df43ff2657a6d42925d98aa8645f plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/30/cfe7a860b9465c52306f95fbe2634b123c8e54 ../../../.build-id/30/cfe7a860b9465c52306f95fbe2634b123c8e54 plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7d/201e173d2d062c1525f6b3ad6f0b9be4c16b62 ../../../.build-id/7d/201e173d2d062c1525f6b3ad6f0b9be4c16b62 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 28 warnings, 9 badness; has taken 9.8 s
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #10) > The package is APPROVED; however, please see the Issues section below, and > make sure you fix the ownership of the %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc directory > immediately upon unretirement. Thanks for the review! > Issues: > ======= > > - Nothing owns %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc. Please change: > > %files devel-doc > %doc %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc/html > > to > > %files devel-doc > %doc %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc > > or otherwise ensure the devel-doc subpackage owns this directory. Oops. Will do! > - The hardlink invocation did not eliminate the duplicate file warnings from > rpmlint, because the files in question had duplicate content but not > duplicate mtimes, so nothing was hardlinked. I think that, for packaging > purposes, hardlink is in the right here, and it is better to ignore the > rpmlint warnings (and optionally remove the call to hardlink as useless) > than > to add the “-t” option to hardlink. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps Makes sense, will do.