Additional remarks:
 - the exact upstream version is "v1.0-rc0" aka "v1.0 Release Canditate 0" but I've opted for 0.99.0 to ensure smooth NVR upgrade path: https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/releases/tag/v1.0-rc0
 - manpages and docs are unfinished upstream, packaging only the files installed by default
 - overall license is LGPLv2+, links with "ccan" subproject that is BSD-MIT and Creative Commons CC0 licensed

Taking this review.

(In reply to Tomáš Bžatek from comment #1)
> Additional remarks:
>  - the exact upstream version is "v1.0-rc0" aka "v1.0 Release Canditate 0"
> but I've opted for 0.99.0 to ensure smooth NVR upgrade path:
> https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/releases/tag/v1.0-rc0

We actually can handle those versions using tilde versioning:

Version: 1.0~rc0

The above sorts lower than 1.0.

$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.0~rc0 1.0
1.0~rc0 < 1.0

Oh, interesting, thanks for the hint!

Updated build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/storage/udisks-daily/build/3191926/
Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-35-x86_64/03191926-libnvme/libnvme.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-35-x86_64/03191926-libnvme/libnvme-1.0~rc0-1.fc35.src.rpm

Updated build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/storage/udisks-daily/build/3289320/
Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-35-x86_64/03289320-libnvme/libnvme.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-35-x86_64/03289320-libnvme/libnvme-1.0~rc2-1.fc35.src.rpm

Is there anything else required from my side at this point?

> Source0: https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/archive/refs/tags/v1.0-rc2.tar.gz#/%{name}-v1.0-rc2.tar.gz

This can be reworked like so:

Source0: https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/archive/v%{version_no_tilde}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

> %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-1.0-rc2

You can rework this to "%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version_no_tilde}"

Updated build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/storage/udisks-daily/build/3489838/
Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03489838-libnvme/libnvme.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03489838-libnvme/libnvme-1.0~rc3-1.fc36.src.rpm

Updated with the latest upstream -rc3 release. Used %{version_no_tilde} where applicable, thanks for the hint. This is unavailable on RHEL 8 so I've added fallback at the beginning of the spec file for compatibility. Subject to removal after -rc, however for the moment we're using single spec file for various targets.

This -rc3 release also comes with reworked documentation that is built in the process. I've tried to make it clean however the rpm %doc macro is rather unpredictable and I ended up with manual file reshuffling to get sane file placement. Also opted for the -doc subpackage as there are large number of files.

Feel free to steal the local definition of %version_no_tilde compatibility macro from btrfs-progs: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/btrfs-progs/blob/rawhide/f/btrfs-progs.spec#_1-2

Thanks, this conversation is getting really useful!

Updated build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/storage/udisks-daily/build/3490997/
Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03490997-libnvme/libnvme.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03490997-libnvme/libnvme-1.0~rc3-1.fc36.src.rpm

> URL:     https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme
> Source0: https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/archive/v%{version_no_tilde}/%{name}-%{version_no_tilde}.tar.gz

You can simplify Source0 to this:

Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version_no_tilde}/%{name}-%{version_no_tilde}.tar.gz

> %{_libdir}/libnvme.so.*

This glob is too greedy, you need to track the soversion in here.

Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10)
> > URL:     https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme
> > Source0: https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/archive/v%{version_no_tilde}/%{name}-%{version_no_tilde}.tar.gz
> 
> You can simplify Source0 to this:
> 
> Source0:
> %{url}/archive/v%{version_no_tilde}/%{name}-%{version_no_tilde}.tar.gz

Changed.

> > %{_libdir}/libnvme.so.*
> 
> This glob is too greedy, you need to track the soversion in here.

Fixed, included full version. It's not that much work when rebasing to a newever release.


Updated build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/storage/udisks-daily/build/3503845/
Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03503845-libnvme/libnvme.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03503845-libnvme/libnvme-1.0~rc3-1.fc36.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.

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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License,
     Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 GNU
     Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "MIT License". 710 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/ngompa/2041073-libnvme/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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %{!?version_no_tilde: %define
     version_no_tilde %{shrink:%(echo '%{version}' | tr '~' '-')}}
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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:


Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-nvme: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/libnvme/_nvme.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/archive/v1.0-rc3/libnvme-1.0-rc3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5f7065c71a14ab621ab2383afb1b9c59eedc82c91e011ec12a31d19e303ab7c7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5f7065c71a14ab621ab2383afb1b9c59eedc82c91e011ec12a31d19e303ab7c7


Requires
--------
libnvme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libjson-c.so.5()(64bit)
    libjson-c.so.5(JSONC_0.14)(64bit)
    libuuid.so.1()(64bit)
    libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libnvme-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libnvme(x86-64)
    libnvme.so.1()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(json-c)
    pkgconfig(openssl)
    pkgconfig(uuid)

libnvme-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-nvme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libnvme(x86-64)
    libnvme.so.1()(64bit)
    libnvme.so.1(LIBNVME_1_0)(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libnvme-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libnvme-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libnvme:
    libnvme
    libnvme(x86-64)
    libnvme.so.1()(64bit)
    libnvme.so.1(LIBNVME_1_0)(64bit)

libnvme-devel:
    libnvme-devel
    libnvme-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libnvme)

libnvme-doc:
    libnvme-doc

python3-nvme:
    python-nvme
    python3-nvme
    python3-nvme(x86-64)
    python3.10-nvme

libnvme-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libnvme-debuginfo
    libnvme-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libnvme.so.1.0.0-1.0~rc3-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libnvme-debugsource:
    libnvme-debugsource
    libnvme-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2041073 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Haskell, Perl, R, Ocaml, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

> [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>      Note: %defattr present but not needed

Drop %defattr lines, they're not doing anything rpm isn't already doing.

> [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
>      provide egg info.
> [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python

Ideally, this should provide some kind of Python metadata so that Python programs can register it as a dependency. You can see how this is done in createrepo_c as an example: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/createrepo_c/commit/22f25729801a3d62f903d92b40b147f1222295dc

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #14)
> > [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> >      Note: %defattr present but not needed
> 
> Drop %defattr lines, they're not doing anything rpm isn't already doing.

Removed.

There's a lot of ancient stuff still living in many other spec files around...

> > [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
> >      provide egg info.
> > [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> 
> Ideally, this should provide some kind of Python metadata so that Python
> programs can register it as a dependency. You can see how this is done in
> createrepo_c as an example:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/createrepo_c/commit/
> 22f25729801a3d62f903d92b40b147f1222295dc

This is changing in upstream right now: https://github.com/linux-nvme/libnvme/pull/257
Though my experiments so far indicate it's rather broken, the meson module requiring a git repo, not working on a release tarball, etc. Still work in progress and as I didn't want to block this review, let's just deal with this separately once ready upstream.


Rebased for the upstream -rc4 release, changes to the spec file are fairly minimal:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/storage/udisks-daily/build/3590389/
Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03590389-libnvme/libnvme.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@storage/udisks-daily/fedora-36-x86_64/03590389-libnvme/libnvme-1.0~rc4-1.fc36.src.rpm

Everything looks good to me now, so...

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Great, thank you very much!

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libnvme

FEDORA-2022-8cc7f1d408 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8cc7f1d408

FEDORA-2022-8cc7f1d408 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-8cc7f1d408 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8cc7f1d408

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-617b1e18c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-617b1e18c3`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-617b1e18c3

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Final libnvme-1.0 release has been pushed in rawhide and f36:
  libnvme-1.0-1.fc37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1945137
  libnvme-1.0-1.fc36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1945176