Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05193381-workflow/workflow.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05193381-workflow/workflow-0.10.4-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: As Sogou`s C++ server engine, Sogou C++ Workflow supports almost all back-end C++ online services of Sogou, including all search services, cloud input method, online advertisements, etc., handling more than 10 billion requests every day. This is an enterprise-level programming engine in light and elegant design which can satisfy most C++ back-end development requirements. Fedora Account System Username: fed500
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The glob in the main package library should explicitly list up to the SONAME: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries Looking at the SONAME of the library, it looks like it should have: %{_libdir}/libworkflow.so.0 %{_libdir}/libworkflow.so.0.* - Since this package provides shared library builds, the static library should be excluded without a compelling reason. If the static library should be packaged, a note indicating the rationale would be a helpful reference. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries - Since the description is identical in all subpackages, a "_description" macro can defined once and reused in each section. This is only a nicety and certainly not required. - The -devel shouldn't need an explicit requires on the base packages since the auto dependency generator picks up on the libworkflow.so.0 requirement. - Looks like the crc32c source file is covered under a non-Apache-2 license, so it should be included in License field. - It appears the rbtree.* files are covered under GPL. I don't believe that is allowed to then distribute the project under Apache 2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html. We may need to seek guidance on whether we can package this software as is. ===== 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]: 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: [!]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 91 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2157252-workflow/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. [!]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 604160 bytes in 84 files. [ ]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: workflow-static. [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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in workflow-devel , workflow-static , workflow-docs [?]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Checking: workflow-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-devel-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-static-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-docs-0.10.4-1.fc38.noarch.rpm workflow-debuginfo-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-debugsource-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-0.10.4-1.fc38.src.rpm ==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpofu0z4jw')] checks: 31, packages: 7 workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/about-timeout.en.md workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/tutorial-13-kafka_cli.en.md workflow-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libworkflow.a workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211243 ===================================================== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.7 s ==================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: workflow-debuginfo-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw4_i9yql')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==================================================== 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 workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/about-timeout.en.md workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/tutorial-13-kafka_cli.en.md workflow-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libworkflow.a workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211243 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sogou/workflow/archive/refs/tags/v0.10.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0f5c06cc2d71218bcc29a45fd1a5ee7d9dd1275806fd8ef3ecff483dd9f31bc2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f5c06cc2d71218bcc29a45fd1a5ee7d9dd1275806fd8ef3ecff483dd9f31bc2 Requires -------- workflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) workflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow(x86-64) workflow-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow(x86-64) workflow-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- workflow: libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow workflow(x86-64) workflow-devel: cmake(workflow) workflow-devel workflow-devel(x86-64) workflow-static: workflow-static workflow-static(x86-64) workflow-docs: workflow-docs workflow-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libworkflow.so.0.10.4-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) workflow-debuginfo workflow-debuginfo(x86-64) workflow-debugsource: workflow-debugsource workflow-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2157252 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Java, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for your review. Checking upstream on licensing: https://github.com/sogou/workflow/issues/1133 Asked on legal mailing list about updating fedora-review to check license compatibility. One of the checks raised is: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Is this a false flag?
Yeah it is interesting that fedora-review gave that output even though it is present. However, I was wrong anyway. Using the autogenerated requires is great when a package "uses" a library, but in this case it really should be that devel package should have the fully version dep on the base package. I was getting my wires crossed a bit there. I notice that my syntax highlighting is getting a bit confused due to the backtick used instead of an apostrophe in the description, maybe the fedora-review parser is getting similarly confused? I'm not sure. I highly doubt fedora-review could be made to reliably test for compatibility, as the directionality is very important. For instance, if this was a GPL project, including some Apache licensed software is perfectly compatible. I think it would be very difficult to reliably detect the usage scenario in order to make a proper determination. I suppose flagging potentially conflicting licenses which might need a more careful review would be useful. However, the "here are all the detected licenses" feature seems to mostly do what we'd expect it to do.
Thanks. Rebuilt: spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05194640-workflow/workflow.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05194640-workflow/workflow-0.10.4-2.fc38.src.rpm License detection seems reliable enough. Compatibility warnings for commonly used licenses can be given, either by broad categorization of licenses or specific conflict identification. Reviewers can then check how the material is included. If compatibility information is unknown or unclear, this can also be stated. Will see if can contribute an RB tree implementation upstream.
Created attachment 1935404 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5193447 to 5196659
Andrea - thanks for writing the rbtree implementation in the Linux kernel. Might it be possible to dual license the two files rbtree.c and rbtree.h under something that can incorporated in Apache 2.0 licensed software? It appears that the implementations are widely incorporated in other software. The excellent design and nice tutorial at https://lwn.net/Articles/184495/ probably explains its wide use.
The files rbtree.h and rbtree.c are under GPL2 or later, which includes GPL3 which is compatible with Apache 2. Thus the entire work would be under GPL3.
Yes that seems like what I would expect, the entire work would have to be under GPL. That means the included license text will need to be updated upstream to be GPL instead of the current Apache2 (actually I suppose technically both Apache 2 and GPL should be provided).
Upstream should also distribute GPL license text. Created an issue: https://github.com/sogou/workflow/issues/1148 If upstream decides not to do this, probably if they expect to update the code, can add the license text to the package as per: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Note that Apache projects should not include GPL licensed code. Workflow code is primarily under the Apache license but not an Apache project.
Upstream included the license. It is not in the current release though, so added as an extra file. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05216258-workflow/workflow.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05216258-workflow/workflow-0.10.5-1.fc38.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5216267 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2157252-workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05216267-workflow/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
Issues: ======= - The "and" in the license field needs to be uppercase: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/#d2-case-sensitivity ❯ license-validate 'Apache-2.0 and BSD-2-Clause and Zlib and GPL-2.0-or-later' No terminal defined for 'a' at line 1 col 12 Apache-2.0 and BSD-2-Clause and Zlib and GPL-2.0-or ^ Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'} - Looks like the test is a separate CMake project under test/, the current %check run gives: + /usr/bin/ctest --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j16 Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/workflow-0.10.5/redhat-linux-build No tests were found!!! /builddir/build/BUILD/workflow-0.10.5 - rpmlint is also throwing an error about the fsf address, maybe it should be patched to be correct? workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h ===== 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2157252-workflow/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 614400 bytes in 90 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]: 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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in workflow-devel , workflow-docs [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. The GPL file is present in upstream, but not yet in a release. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Checking: workflow-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-devel-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-docs-0.10.5-1.fc38.noarch.rpm workflow-debuginfo-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-debugsource-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-0.10.5-1.fc38.src.rpm ==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgusoy00v')] checks: 31, packages: 6 workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211940 ===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s ==================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: workflow-debuginfo-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmperqkr8g8')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==================================================== 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: 5 workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211940 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sogou/workflow/archive/refs/tags/v0.10.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 96fe3c434429aa3d1d15c25df5b23a72284b07c6868e3746f587b3a8e2e16a68 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 96fe3c434429aa3d1d15c25df5b23a72284b07c6868e3746f587b3a8e2e16a68 Requires -------- workflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) workflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow(x86-64) workflow-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- workflow: libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow workflow(x86-64) workflow-devel: cmake(workflow) workflow-devel workflow-devel(x86-64) workflow-docs: workflow-docs workflow-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libworkflow.so.0.10.5-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) workflow-debuginfo workflow-debuginfo(x86-64) workflow-debugsource: workflow-debugsource workflow-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2157252 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Java, Haskell, R, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
*** Bug 2172112 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated. Cannot run tests as Gtest in Fedora rawhide requires C++14 or later. FSF address is due to license, and should not be changed. Same address is on FSF website. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05556866-workflow/workflow.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05556866-workflow/workflow-0.10.5-3.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1945710 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5216267 to 5556896
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5556896 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2157252-workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05556896-workflow/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The Fedora wiki suggested the usage of the %autorelease macro and %autochangelog macro in .spec file. ref: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/TXLF22CSUVUIQBVHH2NEFF4IOIFHS5WK/?sort=date https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/autorelease.html https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/autochangelog.html
Thanks for the suggestion. autorelease and autochangelog are optional. Have found managing these manually a little more convenient as it decouples commit messages from log messages. Waiting for a new release from upstream so can incorporate tests.
Updated to latest release. Fedora-review gives error for address in FSF GPL2 license. However, this is the same address on the FSF website for GPL2. There is also a warning for example source code included as documentation. Can remove this if needed. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1946361 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5556896 to 5566181
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5566181 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2157252-workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05566181-workflow/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #19) > Updated to latest release. Fedora-review gives error for address in FSF GPL2 > license. However, this is the same address on the FSF website for GPL2. > There is also a warning for example source code included as documentation. > Can remove this if needed. > > spec: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora- > rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow.spec > srpm: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora- > rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.src.rpm The upstream maintainer explained that that code which caused incorrect-fsf-address in /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h was copied from the corresponding old code of GPL v2, so keep the address unchanged.
the related issue: https://github.com/sogou/workflow/issues/1184
Expect only assigned reviewer can indicate a positive review.
Oh, very sorry for my mistake here.
Everything looks good. I'm not sure why rpmlint says there's no documentation, clearly there is, in the rpm, in the right place annotated as %doc. As discussed in the comments, the address might be old, but it matches the license of the original code thus shouldn't be changed. 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]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2157252-workflow/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 614400 bytes in 90 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]: 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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in workflow-devel , workflow-docs [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/troycurtisjr/reviews/build/5595344/ [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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Checking: workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm workflow-devel-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm workflow-docs-0.10.6-1.fc39.noarch.rpm workflow-debuginfo-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm workflow-debugsource-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.src.rpm ==================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpf2w6i_5j')] checks: 31, packages: 6 workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h ===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s ==================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: workflow-debuginfo-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ==================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpd57dol8v')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==================================================== 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: 5 workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sogou/workflow/archive/v0.10.6/workflow-0.10.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5701ef31518a7927e61b26cd6cc1d699cb43393bf1ffc77fa61e73e64d2dd28e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5701ef31518a7927e61b26cd6cc1d699cb43393bf1ffc77fa61e73e64d2dd28e Requires -------- workflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) workflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow(x86-64) workflow-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- workflow: libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow workflow(x86-64) workflow-devel: cmake(workflow) workflow-devel workflow-devel(x86-64) workflow-docs: workflow-docs workflow-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libworkflow.so.0.10.6-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) workflow-debuginfo workflow-debuginfo(x86-64) workflow-debugsource: workflow-debugsource workflow-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2157252 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Ocaml, R, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workflow