Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libgbinder/raw/main/f/libgbinder.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libgbinder Description: C interfaces for Android binder Fedora Account System Username: aleasto
Here's a copr build of the srpm https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04641823-libgbinder/libgbinder-1.1.25-1.fc37.src.rpm
Latest package: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libgbinder/raw/main/f/libgbinder.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04995920-libgbinder/libgbinder-1.1.26-1.fc38.src.rpm
> %package devel > Requires: %{name} = %{version} 1. This should be an arch-specific dependency. 2. Please include the release number as well. In other words - "%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package > %build > %{set_build_flags} Calling %set_build_flags manually is no longer needed since Fedora 36. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck > %install > rm -rf %{buildroot} Don't. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections > %files devel > %{_includedir}/gbinder/*.h This will make the package own the .h files, but not the directory. It should be ok to replace this with just "%{_includedir}/gbinder". Alternatively, you can add "%dir %{_includedir}/gbinder". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/#_common_mistakes
Thank you for the explainations! I've included your suggestions as well as some other I received on my other review requests Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libgbinder/raw/main/f/libgbinder.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05002484-libgbinder/libgbinder-1.1.26-1.fc38.src.rpm
Hello Artur, I am currently reviewing a ticket (RHBZ 2120130) that depends on this one. You are not assigned here, are you planning to formally finish the review, or should I take on?
> Version: 1.1.26 There is already a 1.1.29, can you please update? > %description > C interfaces for Android binder The project has a nice README file, can you please use some text from it? > Issues: > ======= > - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. > Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in libgbinder > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets This is a strange issue at first sight because I can't see any ldconfig usage in the spec file. But the fedora-review tool discovered this Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jkadlcik/2120131-libgbinder/srpm/libgbinder.spec 2022-11-26 13:55:19.121461294 +0100 +++ /home/jkadlcik/2120131-libgbinder/srpm-unpacked/libgbinder.spec 2022-11-01 23:03:45.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ +%define _disable_source_fetch 0 + Name: libgbinder Version: 1.1.26 @@ -16,4 +18,6 @@ BuildRequires: bison flex Requires: libglibutil >= %{libglibutil_version} +Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig +Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig %description @@ -45,4 +49,8 @@ %{make_build} -C unit test +%post -p /sbin/ldconfig + +%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig + %files %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.* @@ -55,4 +63,5 @@ # Tools + %package tools Summary: Binder tools My guess is that you updated your spec and forgot to rebuild your SRPM file or you rebuilt the SRPM package and forgot to push the spec file changes. > libgbinder-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binder-bridge > libgbinder-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binder-list > libgbinder-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binder-ping It would be nice to have manpages for these binaries in the future. Can you please file an upstream RFE for them to be created, and add the link somewhere to the spec file?
Done. The README is mostly implementation details but I've gone and added the first two paragraphs to the specfile description. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05068987-libgbinder/libgbinder.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05068987-libgbinder/libgbinder-1.1.29-1.fc38.src.rpm
Perfect, thank you. > [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define libglibutil_version > 1.0.52 I think you can simply use %global instead of %define there But I am not going to block the review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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. [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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2120131-libgbinder/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. [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 ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libgbinder-tools [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define libglibutil_version 1.0.52 [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]: 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) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 6 libgbinder-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binder-bridge libgbinder-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binder-call libgbinder-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binder-list libgbinder-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binder-ping libgbinder.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libgbinder.so.1.1.29 libgbinder.so.1.1 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mer-hybris/libgbinder/archive/refs/tags/1.1.29.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a96e25104db723ba0f4f9317c813c37e5f1ae169064c2cc9a9223a1fddc8cfaf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a96e25104db723ba0f4f9317c813c37e5f1ae169064c2cc9a9223a1fddc8cfaf Requires -------- libgbinder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglibutil libglibutil.so.1()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libgbinder-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libgbinder(x86-64) libgbinder.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) pkgconfig(libglibutil) libgbinder-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libgbinder-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libgbinder-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgbinder libgbinder.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglibutil.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libgbinder: libgbinder libgbinder(x86-64) libgbinder.so.1()(64bit) libgbinder-devel: libgbinder-devel libgbinder-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libgbinder) libgbinder-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libgbinder-debuginfo libgbinder-debuginfo(x86-64) libgbinder.so.1.1.29-1.1.29-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libgbinder-debugsource: libgbinder-debugsource libgbinder-debugsource(x86-64) libgbinder-tools: libgbinder-tools libgbinder-tools(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120131 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Python, Java, PHP, Perl, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libgbinder
FEDORA-2022-0607cedc9e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0607cedc9e
FEDORA-2022-0607cedc9e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-0607cedc9e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0607cedc9e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-4cf6bf787d 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-4cf6bf787d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4cf6bf787d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-0607cedc9e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-4cf6bf787d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.