Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/mmsd/-/raw/master/mmsd-tng.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02968893-mmsd-tng/mmsd-tng-1.5-1.fc36.src.rpm Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/2968893/ Description: mmsd is a lower level daemon that transmits and recieves MMSes. It works with both the ofono stack and the Modem Manager stack. Please note that mmsd alone will not get MMS working! It is designed to work with a higher level chat application to facilitate fetching and sending MMS. It interfaces with other applications via the dbus. Fedora Account System Username: torbuntu Chatty v0.5.0 will require this service in order to manage MMS properly.
> License: GPL-2 Fedora uses the "GPLv2" short name. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses > mkdir -p %{buildroot}/usr/lib/systemd/user/ > cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}/usr/lib/systemd/user/ Use "%{buildroot}%{_userunitdir}" here.
Thank you for the review! I have made the edits: Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/mmsd/-/raw/master/mmsd-tng.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02992664-mmsd-tng/mmsd-tng-1.5-1.fc36.src.rpm Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/2992664/
I'll go ahead and review this. Look for a full review in a bit.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. You want to use %{?dist} instead of just %{dist} :) - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in mmsd-tng See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units You want to drop the %postun one here I think...it shouldn't matter for user units. - Source2 and Source3 seem unused? - I think you want a Requires: systemd here (both to own directories and for the unit files) - Looks like 1.7 is out. Update? - Looks like there's tests. Add a %check section to call 'meson test' ? ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kevin/2024593-mmsd-tng/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib/systemd/user [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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 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 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: [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]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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. [-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/kop316/mmsd/-/archive/1.5/mmsd-1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2db8d8d63e7b4a7782d333dc679fbd839a697a47f07caeae22887b4301bb8999 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2db8d8d63e7b4a7782d333dc679fbd839a697a47f07caeae22887b4301bb8999 Requires -------- mmsd-tng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcares.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libmm-glib.so.0()(64bit) libphonenumber.so.8()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) pkgconfig(mobile-broadband-provider-info) rtld(GNU_HASH) mmsd-tng-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mmsd-tng-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mmsd-tng: mmsd-tng mmsd-tng(x86-64) mmsd-tng-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mmsd-tng-debuginfo mmsd-tng-debuginfo(x86-64) mmsd-tng-debugsource: mmsd-tng-debugsource mmsd-tng-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2024593 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, fonts, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! Made the corrections and built: Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/mmsd/-/raw/master/mmsd-tng.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03136503-mmsd-tng/mmsd-tng-1.7-1.fc36.src.rpm Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/3136503/
warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sun Jan 09 2021 Torrey Sorensen <torbuntu> - 1.7-1 Time to update... it's 2022 now. ;) Otherwise everything looks fixed to me, this package is APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mmsd-tng
Package is now in repositories, closing review.