Spec URL: https://www.zarb.org/~misc/tmp/biboumi.spec SRPM URL: https://www.zarb.org/~misc/tmp/biboumi-9.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Biboumi is an XMPP gateway that connects to IRC servers and translates between the two protocols. It can be used to access IRC channels using any XMPP client as if these channels were XMPP MUCs. Fedora Account System Username: misc That's a re-review, see https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10390 Upgrade to 9.0: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/misc/rpms/biboumi/c/5bc6cfa060d135774929945f3757d83d47747dd1?branch=f34 Initial review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699697 I am also running it without problem on F35.
Few notes when looking on spec file: 1) Patch0 should ideally link to change proposed to upstream and contain link to upstream issue in a comment. Of course the change should be a bit modified then. 2) %ctest should be used if possible in %check 3) ctest does not seem to support test suite used by the project. Either propose upstream fix to find tests under ctest. Or use %cmake_build -t check to run test suite. If it needs network connectivity, use %bcond_with check and if %{with check}.
Created attachment 1844400 [details] alternative change to skip bundling catch2 during build I have tried to implement more suitable change, which could be proposed to upstream. It autodetects system catch-devel package and uses it instead of bundled one, downloaded during the build. All needed should be this patch and BuildRequires: catch-devel. I would replace original Patch0 with it, offer it upstream and include link to upstream merge request in a comment.
I think %{?systemd_ordering} is more appropriate, it does not have to drag systemd to possible container builds. Systemd macros handle missing systemd package well and would not print any error. I would replace %{?systemd_requires} with %{?systemd_ordering}. But that is just unimportant optimization.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/biboumi/irc.gimp.org.policy.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/biboumi See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in biboumi See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets - Used source path does not work to me. But spectool -g *.spec can download it if .xz is replaced with .bz2 in Source0. - %check contains non-working test run, but tests are present and pass when make check is used. ===== 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]: 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", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng license", "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* Public domain". 264 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/2025155-biboumi/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [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 71680 bytes in 9 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://lab.louiz.org/louiz/biboumi/-/archive/9.0/biboumi-9.0.tar.xz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [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). [?]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball with invalid URL, check comments [-]: 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 [!]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: biboumi-9.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm biboumi-debuginfo-9.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm biboumi-debugsource-9.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm biboumi-9.0-1.fc36.src.rpm biboumi.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 8.5-6 ['9.0-1.fc36', '9.0-1'] biboumi.src:48: W: macro-in-comment %cmake_build biboumi.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://lab.louiz.org/louiz/biboumi/-/archive/9.0/biboumi-9.0.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: biboumi-debuginfo-9.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- biboumi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(biboumi) libbotan-2.so.18()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libidn.so.12()(64bit) libidn.so.12(LIBIDN_1.0)(64bit) libpq.so.5()(64bit) libpq.so.5(RHPG_9.6)(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libudns.so.0()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd biboumi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): biboumi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- biboumi: biboumi biboumi(x86-64) config(biboumi) biboumi-debuginfo: biboumi-debuginfo biboumi-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) biboumi-debugsource: biboumi-debugsource biboumi-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/2025155-biboumi/srpm/biboumi.spec 2021-12-01 00:19:50.695539595 +0100 +++ /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/2025155-biboumi/srpm-unpacked/biboumi.spec 2021-11-17 21:07:51.000000000 +0100 @@ -20,4 +20,5 @@ BuildRequires: udns-devel BuildRequires: libpq-devel +BuildRequires: python3-sphinx BuildRequires: python3-sphinx_rtd_theme BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros @@ -45,5 +46,5 @@ -DWITH_POSTGRESQL=1 . %cmake_build - +#%cmake_build --target doc %install @@ -76,8 +77,4 @@ %changelog -* Wed Nov 17 2021 Michael Scherer <misc> - 9.0-1 -- Update to 9.0 -- unretire and rebuild for F35 - * Mon Feb 08 2021 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup> - 8.5-6 - rebuild for libpq ABI fix rhbz#1908268 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025155 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Mhh seems I also uploaded the wrong spec or wrong rpms. Guess I am rusty. Also, upstream gitlab is down at the moment (error 500), so I can't open a bug nor send your patch. I pushed the changes at the same location.
I get error 500 only because .tar.xz suffix is used instead of .tar.bz2. If I change it, spectool -g *.spec would download source successfully. But otherwise it seems okay. Were .xz archive downloaded from that gitlab originally? Could it be replaced with bz2? Anyway, I don't see any significant problems, giving review+ flag. Thank you.
I got the tar.xz from the main website: https://biboumi.louiz.org/ But seems also there is a way to download tarball from git in various format: https://git.louiz.org/biboumi/refs/ Gitlab is in bz2 and missing 9.0: https://lab.louiz.org/louiz/biboumi/-/releases If spectool work with .bz2 now, that's fine for me. (also, sorry, I should check this bz more than once every month, I keep saying "will see tomorrow" since too long :( )
So I submitted https://lab.louiz.org/louiz/biboumi/-/merge_requests/60
Because you have already review+, you can continue by: fedpkg request-repo biboumi Once that is created, spec and sources can be built on rawhide branch. Branches f35 and f34 would require its own request-branch requests.
If source url for xz archive works, then please add link to it in Source0. It may just been broken when I were testing it. Use whatever will work from spectool -g *.spec, when you remove that file. xz archive would be preferred as smaller archive.
Package is now in repositories, closing review.