Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/libtree-ldd.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/libtree-ldd-2.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: A tool that: - turns ldd into a tree - explains why shared libraries are found and why not - optionally deploys executables and dependencies into a single directory Fedora Account System Username: mikelo2
Fedora already has a library package named libtree, so to avoid conflicts I named this as libtree-ldd and added a `Provides: %{_bindir}/libtree`. Depends on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028270 and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elfio/pull-request/1
Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/libtree-ldd.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/libtree-ldd-3.0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm - Version switched from c++ to c99, cmake to plain Makefile and no dependencies
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (OK: rpmautospec) - You could get a better tarball name with: Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/libtree-%{version}.tar.gz - You should try to run the test suite. I added %check %make_build check which worked fine, except that two tests did not work, and I did not immediately understand why. If I add to %prep: rm -rf tests/07_origin_is_relative_to_symlink_location_not_realpath rm -rf tests/08_nodeflib then the rest of the tests pass, at least. Ideally, you could understand what’s going wrong with those two tests, and explain it in a comment or fix it. - The Makefile’s install target is not preserving timestamps. Consider, in %prep: sed -r -i 's/\b(cp )/\1-p /' Makefile - This is not needed, as file provides are automatic: Provides: %{_bindir}/libtree - You are correctly passing the distro flags for CFLAGS, but not LDFLAGS, so the final executable does not have the correct hardening options, e.g., it is not a position-independent executable. The best fix is to change %make_build CFLAGS="%{optflags}" to %set_build_flags %make_build ===== 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", "MIT License". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2028272-libtree-ldd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. LDFLAGS are not used [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. [-]: 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]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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://github.com/haampie/libtree/archive/refs/tags/v3.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20d3cd66f5c74058de9dd594af8ffd639c795d27ab435c588a3cd43911c1604f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20d3cd66f5c74058de9dd594af8ffd639c795d27ab435c588a3cd43911c1604f Requires -------- libtree-ldd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libtree-ldd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtree-ldd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libtree-ldd: /usr/bin/libtree libtree-ldd libtree-ldd(x86-64) libtree-ldd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libtree-ldd-debuginfo libtree-ldd-debuginfo(x86-64) libtree-ldd-debugsource: libtree-ldd-debugsource libtree-ldd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2028272 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, fonts, Python, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 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: 32, packages: 4 libtree-ldd.spec:14: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/libtree libtree-ldd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/libtree-3.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug libtree-ldd-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/libtree-3.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug libtree-ldd.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/libtree libtree-ldd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/libtree-3.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug libtree-ldd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/6d/d0f7c9c343c0046504573b373e501f808a3436 ../../../.build-id/6d/d0f7c9c343c0046504573b373e501f808a3436 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/libtree-ldd.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/libtree-ldd-3.0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm - Changed Source0 url - Added %check section but remove two tests that also fail upstream - Preserve file timestamps - Remove unneeded Provide - Correct build flags by using %set_build_flags Thanks for the review Ben!
I’m assuming you forgot to update the spec file link, and you want the spec file from the SRPM used for the review: https://music.fedorapeople.org/libtree-ldd.spec
It looks like you handled all of my feedback—looks great now! Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: rpmautospec ===== 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", "MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2028272-libtree-ldd/re-review/2028272-libtree- ldd/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. [-]: 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]: 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. [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]: 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://github.com/haampie/libtree/archive/v3.0.1/libtree-3.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20d3cd66f5c74058de9dd594af8ffd639c795d27ab435c588a3cd43911c1604f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20d3cd66f5c74058de9dd594af8ffd639c795d27ab435c588a3cd43911c1604f Requires -------- libtree-ldd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libtree-ldd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtree-ldd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libtree-ldd: libtree-ldd libtree-ldd(x86-64) libtree-ldd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libtree-ldd-debuginfo libtree-ldd-debuginfo(x86-64) libtree-ldd-debugsource: libtree-ldd-debugsource libtree-ldd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2028272 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 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: 32, packages: 4 libtree-ldd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/libtree-3.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug libtree-ldd-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/libtree-3.0.1-1.fc36.x86_64.debug libtree-ldd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/27/d023cb28d5a7a980facf07f03901b82ed4fd8b ../../../.build-id/27/d023cb28d5a7a980facf07f03901b82ed4fd8b 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s
I think the spec file was cached in your browser... I need to check the conf so specs are not cached. Thanks for the review Ben! I learnt a couple of new things here.
(In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #7) > I think the spec file was cached in your browser... I need to check the conf > so specs are not cached. You’re right—a Ctrl+Shift+R in Firefox fetches the updated spec. > Thanks for the review Ben! I learnt a couple of new things here. You’re welcome!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libtree-ldd
FEDORA-2021-e01d69b0fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e01d69b0fe
FEDORA-2021-e01d69b0fe has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-f77a497b1d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f77a497b1d
FEDORA-2021-b52d10848c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b52d10848c
FEDORA-2021-b52d10848c 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-b52d10848c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b52d10848c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f77a497b1d 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-f77a497b1d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f77a497b1d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-b52d10848c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-f77a497b1d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.