Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: m1n1 is bootloader and experimentation playground for Apple Silicon. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Taking this review.
I think we probably don't want to use Asahi Linux artwork... Can you adjust this to drop the artwork repo and use the stuff provided by fedora-logos and generic-logos (for a Fedora build and a generic build)?
Can the tools subpackage be noarch? Or is it arch specific?
Put up https://pagure.io/fedora-logos/pull-request/21 and https://pagure.io/generic-logos/pull-request/2 to get the necessary logos added so we can use them here. The tools package is just python scripts afaict, so I think it's fine to make it noarch.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - drop upstream artwork and use Fedora logos instead - update description - drop -efi subpackage for now (will add it back once we have u-boot) - make -tools subpackage noarch, add missing tools, update requires - backport PR to fix proxyclient when using gcc
> %ifarch aarch64 > Recommends: gcc > %else > Recommends: gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu > %endif > BuildArch: noarch These are incompatible stanzas. You can't have archful conditionals in a noarch package.
Oh, so maybe this does need to be arched after all. I know for sure chainload.py needs gcc, and I think some of the other proxyclient utilities do as well.
I've changed my mind, let's keep this noarch and just drop the Recommends -- these are developer tools after all, and the error messages when stuff is missing are pretty clear, so I think it's fine to let the user figure it out. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - drop arched Recommends for -tools subpackage
We're missing some bundled() provides for the vendored libraries in m1n1. From what I can see, there are at least a couple of libraries there...
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - add BR on adobe-source-code-pro-fonts and use it instead of the vendored one - add bundled provides for vendored libraries
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "MIT License SIL Open Font License 1.1 with Reserved Font Name", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "zlib License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2066135-m1n1/licensecheck.txt [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. [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: [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in m1n1-tools [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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 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 (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AsahiLinux/m1n1/archive/v1.0.2/m1n1-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8fa1e95cf6c39f9b2f4df24cbc8b4a3a32e3f2746c0032a04041bb3b2d3eac9d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fa1e95cf6c39f9b2f4df24cbc8b4a3a32e3f2746c0032a04041bb3b2d3eac9d Requires -------- m1n1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): m1n1-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 m1n1 python3 python3dist(construct) python3dist(pyserial) Provides -------- m1n1: bundled(dlmalloc) bundled(libfdt) bundled(minilzlib) bundled(tinf) m1n1 m1n1(x86-64) m1n1-tools: m1n1-tools Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2066135 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Perl, Python, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This is probably confused from the cross-gcc dependency. > - Dist tag is present. This is definitely confused by rpmautospec formatting. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. This is missing in the spec file, can you please fix this?
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - document license breakdown - add a couple more missing bundled provides
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Changelog: - drop GPLv2 from the license tag, as all GPLv2 components are also dual licensed as BSD
This looks good to me now, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo m1n1 2066135 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43146
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/m1n1
FEDORA-2022-80f088feb5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-80f088feb5
FEDORA-2022-80f088feb5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9
FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9 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-2022-27984cfba9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.