Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick-4.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: The pick utility allows users to choose one option from a set of choices using an interface with fuzzy search functionality. pick reads a list of choices on stdin and outputs the selected choice on stdout. Therefore it is easily used both in pipelines and subshells. Fedora Account System Username: xfgusta
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79389741
The upstream source contains some "compat-*.c" files which are BSD-licensed. I think you should either change the License tag to "MIT and BSD", or try removing those files and patching the Makefile in %prep.
Hi Artur. I found out that this is the ISC License. I added it to the license field. Thanks! Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick-4.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
There are a couple issues, the most serious one being the conflicting file. Seeing how upstream isn't very active, I suggest you try containing the maintainer of the "nmh" package and seeing if one of the conflicting executables can be renamed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Note: A comment stating that the "compat-*.c" files are subject to the ISC license will suffice. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. /usr/bin/pick from pick-4.0.0-1 conflicts with /usr/bin/pick from nmh-1.7.1-15. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Note: The man page is installed without preserving the timestamp. Setting the INSTALL_MAN variable should solve this. ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Note: A comment stating that the "compat-*.c" files are subject to the ISC license will suffice. [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 [-]: 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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. /usr/bin/pick from pick-4.0.0-1 conflicts with /usr/bin/pick from nmh-1.7.1-15. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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). [x]: 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. Note: Successful scratch build in koji can be found at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79939085 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Note: The man page is installed without preserving the timestamp. Setting the INSTALL_MAN variable should solve this. [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: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pick-4.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm pick-debuginfo-4.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm pick-debugsource-4.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm pick-4.0.0-1.fc36.src.rpm pick.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio pick.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out pick.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subshells -> sub shells, sub-shells, shells pick.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio pick.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out pick.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subshells -> sub shells, sub-shells, shells 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pick-debuginfo-4.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mptre/pick/archive/v4.0.0/pick-4.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c62b1372b8c21d64c6da5a687abf3b56ee314fae5b67c1f08b5550ea5f87fdac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c62b1372b8c21d64c6da5a687abf3b56ee314fae5b67c1f08b5550ea5f87fdac Requires -------- pick (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pick-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pick-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pick: pick pick(x86-64) pick-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pick-debuginfo pick-debuginfo(x86-64) pick-debugsource: pick-debugsource pick-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2027139 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Python, fonts, PHP, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_incompatible_binary_files_with_conflicting_naming_and_stubborn_upstreams > as long as there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed > simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager’s > discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case. Can we agree to add Conflicts to our spec file?
> Can we agree to add Conflicts to our spec file? Fine by me. > Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case. You'd still need to coordinate this with the maintainer of "nmh".
> You'd still need to coordinate this with the maintainer of "nmh". Sure, I have just sent him an email. Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick-4.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
The nmh package maintainer has replied: > Hi Gustavo, > > That's unfortunate. It does seem like Conflicts: is the best way to > proceed. I'll add Conflicts: pick to the nmh spec files now.
> export INSTALL_MAN="%{__install} -p -m 0644" Macro forms of system executables are discouraged. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros > Conflicts: nmh I guess it's rather obvious in this case, but I still think a comment saying "nmh also provides /usr/bin/pick" would be useful. Other than that, looks ok. Package approved.
I changed "%{__install}" to "install" and added the comment as you suggested. Spec URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick.spec SRPM URL: https://xfgusta.fedorapeople.org/packages/pick/pick-4.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Thanks for the review. I'll request the git module now.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pick
FEDORA-2021-00d441cedc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-00d441cedc
FEDORA-2021-27f2ac80a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-27f2ac80a3
FEDORA-2021-27f2ac80a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-27f2ac80a3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-27f2ac80a3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-00d441cedc 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-2021-00d441cedc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-00d441cedc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-27f2ac80a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-00d441cedc has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.