Spec URL: https://github.com/navidys/podman-tui-rpm/blob/main/podman-tui.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/navidys/podman-tui/fedora-35-x86_64/03811741-podman-tui/podman-tui-0.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: podman-tui: terminal user interface for podman Fedora Account System Username: navidys
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/navidys/podman-tui-rpm/main/podman-tui.spec
Hi Navid, could you please post a link to a successful koji build? To generate a koji build, do: koji build --scratch rawhide $PATH_TO_SRPM If the build fails, you can look in the build.log or root.log files to see what issues it points to, and retry once you've fixed them in the spec file.
Hi Lukesh The issues with koji build is fixed and built is successful: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84545969
Posting output of fedora-review as-is. Will update review in a followup comment: This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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 ===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: 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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/containers/podman-tui/archive/v0.2.0/podman-tui-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fec7e32d2fb49f9bd303ebaffe6b1be93fa1c0fa8fe164b47ad2ad9a9bb75334 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fec7e32d2fb49f9bd303ebaffe6b1be93fa1c0fa8fe164b47ad2ad9a9bb75334 Requires -------- podman-tui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libassuan.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdevmapper.so.1.02()(64bit) libdevmapper.so.1.02(Base)(64bit) libdevmapper.so.1.02(DM_1_02_97)(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libgpgme.so.11()(64bit) libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.0)(64bit) libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.1)(64bit) libltdl.so.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) podman-tui-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): podman-tui-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- podman-tui: bundled(golang(github.com/Microsoft/hcsshim)) bundled(golang(github.com/VividCortex/ewma)) bundled(golang(github.com/beorn7/perks)) bundled(golang(github.com/containerd/containerd)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/buildah)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/common)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/image/v5)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/libtrust)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/ocicrypt)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/podman/v3)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/psgo)) bundled(golang(github.com/containers/storage)) bundled(golang(github.com/cri_o/ocicni)) bundled(golang(github.com/disiqueira/gotree/v3)) bundled(golang(github.com/gdamore/tcell/v2)) bundled(golang(github.com/google/go_intervals)) bundled(golang(github.com/jinzhu/copier)) bundled(golang(github.com/mattn/go_runewidth)) bundled(golang(github.com/mtrmac/gpgme)) bundled(golang(github.com/navidys/tvxwidgets)) bundled(golang(github.com/navidys/vtterm)) bundled(golang(github.com/ostreedev/ostree_go)) bundled(golang(github.com/rivo/tview)) bundled(golang(github.com/vbauerster/mpb/v7)) podman-tui podman-tui(x86-64) podman-tui-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) podman-tui-debuginfo podman-tui-debuginfo(x86-64) podman-tui-debugsource: podman-tui-debugsource podman-tui-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/lsm5/fedora-review/2064163-podman-tui/srpm/podman-tui.spec 2022-03-22 08:42:33.367488879 -0400 +++ /home/lsm5/fedora-review/2064163-podman-tui/srpm-unpacked/podman-tui.spec 2022-03-22 05:21:50.000000000 -0400 @@ -228,3 +228,3 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog \ No newline at end of file +%autochangelog Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2064163 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Python, PHP, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. While ASL 2.0 is correct, the licenses used in dependencies to build the binary should be mentioned in the License field. Running `find . -name *LICENSE* -exec licensecheck {} \; ` on the upstream source, should show a list of all licenses. Using that, the `License` field in the spec file should be changed to: License: ASL 2.0 and BSD and ISC and MIT and MPLv2.0 See: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/podman/blob/rawhide/f/podman.spec#_43 for a similar example. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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 [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). In the spec file, I see a lot of /usr/bin/foo and /bin/foo used. Please replace those with %{_bindir}/foo (both /usr/bin and /bin are the same now) [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]: 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 ===== 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. Navid, this would be nice to have if possible, but many don't, so not a deal breaker. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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) I think this happened because you changed the URL but did not update the SRPM ? This will go away in an actual koji build. [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.
Hi Lukesh I have updated the spec file with correct Licenses and macros. Thanks.
Thanks Navid, spec lgtm. Package approved. I have sponsored you into the packager group. You may need to re-login to accounts.fedoraproject.org for your membership to become active. Once you've logged in, follow the process at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#add_package_to_source_code_management_scm_system_and_set_owner Let me know if any issues.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/podman-tui
FEDORA-2022-7ac2b91f76 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7ac2b91f76
FEDORA-2022-7ac2b91f76 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.