Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libglibutil/raw/main/f/libglibutil.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libglibutil Description: Provides glib utility functions and macros Fedora Account System Username: aleasto
There is no srpm. Tried to build it: spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/libglibutil/fedora-36-x86_64/04753319-libglibutil/libglibutil.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/libglibutil/fedora-36-x86_64/04753319-libglibutil/libglibutil-1.0.66-1.fc36.src.rpm
Indeed the srpm is just built from the git repo i linked. Here's my copr build https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04600450-libglibutil/libglibutil-1.0.65-1.fc37.src.rpm
Latest package: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libglibutil/raw/main/f/libglibutil.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04995906-libglibutil/libglibutil-1.0.67-1.fc38.src.rpm
Hello Alessandro, thank you for the package. Overall it looks good to me. > Source: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/%{version}.tar.gz Sources should be indexed, starting from zero. Can you please change it to Source0? > %description > Provides glib utility functions and macros Can you please write 2-3 full sentences about the package? > rm -rf %{buildroot} This can IMHO be removed > %defattr(-,root,root,-) I believe this isn't needed as well. Did you have to add it to address some issue? > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Note to myself to look at these again, running out of time now :-)
This was originally inherited from the project maintainer themselves: https://github.com/sailfishos/libglibutil/blob/master/rpm/libglibutil.spec I can clean up the odd rm -rf and %defattr if you prefer. > > %description > > Provides glib utility functions and macros > Can you please write 2-3 full sentences about the package? I'm not sure what to write honestly, i just know this package is a dependency of libgbinder which is more interesting.
I've included your suggestions as well as some other I received on my other review requests Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libglibutil/raw/main/f/libglibutil.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05002418-libglibutil/libglibutil-1.0.67-1.fc38.src.rpm
Thank you for the changes. > I'm not sure what to write honestly, i just know this package is a > dependency of libgbinder which is more interesting. I understand, I was looking at the repo and I have no idea as well. I just hoped you gathered some information from using it :-) Looking at the debian package within the repo, they don't provide any more information either. Okay, let's not block the review by this. What do you think about creating an upstream issue and asking them to provide a little bit more information about the project in the README? You can link them this ticket and say that we both had no idea how to describe the project :D It's just a suggestion, if you decide not to do it, it's fine. If yes, please add the link to the upstream issue like this # https://github.com/sailfishos/libglibutil/issues/XX %description Provides glib utility functions and macros > Issues: > ======= > - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. > Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in libglibutil > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets So it seems the %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig lines should be removed, and I would guess these as well Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
Removed ldconfig Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libglibutil/raw/main/f/libglibutil.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05004488-libglibutil/libglibutil-1.0.67-1.fc38.src.rpm
Wrong url... Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/libglibutil/raw/main/f/libglibutil.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05004502-libglibutil/libglibutil-1.0.67-1.fc38.src.rpm
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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2120132-libglibutil/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). [?]: 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. [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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 4 libglibutil.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libglibutil.so.1.0.67 libglibutil.so.1.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sailfishos/libglibutil/archive/refs/tags/1.0.67.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 622f7d420e3f95ee7237b65c17495fe8d4cda1ed0cb68e0794f63c57034e1401 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 622f7d420e3f95ee7237b65c17495fe8d4cda1ed0cb68e0794f63c57034e1401 Requires -------- libglibutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libglibutil-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libglibutil(x86-64) libglibutil.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(glib-2.0) libglibutil-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libglibutil-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libglibutil: libglibutil libglibutil(x86-64) libglibutil.so.1()(64bit) libglibutil-devel: libglibutil-devel libglibutil-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libglibutil) libglibutil-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libglibutil-debuginfo libglibutil-debuginfo(x86-64) libglibutil.so.1.0.67-1.0.67-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libglibutil-debugsource: libglibutil-debugsource libglibutil-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120132 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python, Java, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Since this would be your first Fedora package, you will need to get sponsored into the `packager' group before this package can be accepted. I would like to sponsor you. That would make it my responsibility to guide you through the processes that you will do, and the tools that you will need as a package maintainer. I would also be there to answer your packaging-related questions, or to help you find somebody who knows the answers. Your responsibilities as a future package maintainer are explained here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_maintainer_responsibilities/ To make sure a person is able to fulfill the package maintainer responsibilities, we usually stick to this process https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#requirements I am sending you an email with some follow-up information and my contact information. But for the sake of full transparency, there are also other packager sponsors, so you can reach out to them if you prefer to do so. They might be busy though. https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/active
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libglibutil