Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran-8.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola Description: JSON-Fortran is a user-friendly, thread-safe, and object-oriented API for reading and writing JSON files, written in modern Fortran.
The review caught a couple items about the directory structure that are new to me and that I want to check on (feel free to comment since you have a lot more experience here than me): [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules Other than that, everything looks great %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% No RPMlint findings Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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++/ => Not an issue, this is FORTRAN (I know it's actually Fortran now) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [X]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [X]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "JSON License", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 122 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fuller/fedora-review/2089880-json-fortran/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules [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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 81920 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 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). [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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/jacobwilliams/json-fortran/archive/8.3.0/json-fortran-8.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5fe9ad709a726416cec986886503e0526419742e288c4e43f63c1c22026d1e8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5fe9ad709a726416cec986886503e0526419742e288c4e43f63c1c22026d1e8a Requires -------- json-fortran (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) json-fortran-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) json-fortran(x86-64) libjsonfortran.so.8.3()(64bit) json-fortran-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): json-fortran-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- json-fortran: json-fortran json-fortran(x86-64) libjsonfortran.so.8.3()(64bit) json-fortran-devel: cmake(jsonfortran-gnu) json-fortran-devel json-fortran-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(json-fortran) json-fortran-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) json-fortran-debuginfo json-fortran-debuginfo(x86-64) libjsonfortran.so.8.3.0-8.3.0-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) json-fortran-debugsource: json-fortran-debugsource json-fortran-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2089880 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! (In reply to Mark E. Fuller from comment #1) > The review caught a couple items about the directory structure that are new > to me and that I want to check on (feel free to comment since you have a lot > more experience here than me): > [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran, > /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules > > Other than that, everything looks great The packaging guidelines say that this is where Fortran modules must be installed https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Fortran/ which is owned by gcc-gfortran. I switched to using the %_fmoddir macro and requiring gcc-gfortran in -devel. https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran-8.3.0-2.fc36.src.rpm
That clears everything up - approved
Thanks again!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json-fortran
FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8
FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-14007dd684
FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 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-2022-14007dd684 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 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-2022-ac320886b8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.