Spec URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/cups-browsed/cups-browsed.spec SRPM URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/cups-browsed/cups-browsed-2.0b3-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Daemon for local auto-installation of remote printers Fedora Account System Username: zdohnal
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5534405 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2170547-cups-browsed/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05534405-cups-browsed/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - spurious whitespaces after Version: 2.0b3 - cups-browsed.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %post, it also contains spurious whitespace - %systemd_postun_with_restart cups-browsed.service: spurious whitespace - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions It seems 'implicitclass' is binary why it cannot be read by others? If there is a reason why it cannot be read by others it should be written in the comment. - Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cups Will it be covered by cups-filesystem? - %global _hardened_build 1 If the package is for recent fedora only, the explicit hardening is probably useless, it should be on by default since F23: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages ===== 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]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "FSF All Permissive License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git- fedora/cups-browsed/2170547-cups-browsed/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cups [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 133120 bytes in 6 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in cups-browsed [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). [?]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: cups-browsed-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm cups-browsed-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm cups-browsed-debugsource-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm cups-browsed-2.0b3-1.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/tmpfyygy7f3')] checks: 31, packages: 4 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 cups-browsed.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %post ======================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s ======================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cups-browsed-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.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/tmp6af6em6z')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ======================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ 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: 3 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-browsed/archive/2.0b3/cups-browsed-2.0b3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36c19b629c84f1567217e5f1b80e900a9fc2f7148f6fcfe18eca9f4e2660ca51 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36c19b629c84f1567217e5f1b80e900a9fc2f7148f6fcfe18eca9f4e2660ca51 Requires -------- cups-browsed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(cups-browsed) cups-filesystem libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-common.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-glib.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcups.so.2()(64bit) libcupsfilters.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libppd.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd cups-browsed-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cups-browsed-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cups-browsed: config(cups-browsed) cups-browsed cups-browsed(x86-64) cups-browsed-debuginfo: cups-browsed-debuginfo cups-browsed-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) cups-browsed-debugsource: cups-browsed-debugsource cups-browsed-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: cups-browsed-2.0b3/configure.ac:61 Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2170547 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spurious whitespaces in Summary.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - spurious whitespaces after Version: 2.0b3 Fixed > - cups-browsed.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %post, it also contains > spurious whitespace Both fixed. > - %systemd_postun_with_restart cups-browsed.service: spurious whitespace Fixed. > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_file_permissions > It seems 'implicitclass' is binary why it cannot be read by others? If > there is a reason why it cannot be read by others it should be written in > the comment. To be honest I didn't want to risk regressions with permissions set to 0744 - the implicitclass backend runs ipp backend, which has to be run as root, because if Kerberos authentication is used, the IPP backend switches to the user which has a ticket. It is explained in https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-filters/issues/183#issuecomment-570196216 and permission set 0700 worked well since. I can use 0744 for now, check it in virtual environment and see if it breaks something. However rpmlint will still complain as reported https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171377 > - Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cups > Will it be covered by cups-filesystem? Fixed in cups - now /etc/cups is part of cups-filesystem since 2.4.2-9. > - %global _hardened_build 1 > If the package is for recent fedora only, the explicit hardening is > probably useless, it should be on by default since F23: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages > Actually I put it there out of the habit to see explicitly that hardening is turned on, but I'll remove it. > > ===== 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]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 > Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Historical > Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", > "Apache License 2.0", "FSF All Permissive License". 18 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git- > fedora/cups-browsed/2170547-cups-browsed/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cups > [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. > [x]: 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. > [x]: 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 133120 bytes in 6 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [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]: No %config files under /usr. > [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and > systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. > Note: Systemd service file(s) in cups-browsed > [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). > [?]: 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. > [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > [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: > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools Sent PR to upstream https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-browsed/pull/5 > [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. > > I've done a simple print testing and implicitclass seems to work with 0744 - the newest SPEC and SRPM uploaded, would you mind checking it?
LGTM.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cups-browsed
FEDORA-2023-0b5bdac0ef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0b5bdac0ef
FEDORA-2023-0b5bdac0ef has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-77cfcd1eb3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-77cfcd1eb3
FEDORA-2023-77cfcd1eb3 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.