Spec URL: https://pagure.io/mochaa-rpms/libsv/raw/rawhide/f/libsv.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/libsv/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06172624-libsv/libsv-1.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Public domain cross-platform semantic versioning in c99 Fedora Account System Username: mochaa
You need to provide direct links to .spec and .src.rpm files.
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #1) > You need to provide direct links to .spec and .src.rpm files. Done. Please see the updated comment.
Please, next time, post updated links in a new comment, instead of editing the original one. > Summary: semantic versioning for the C language The summary should start with a capital letter. > License: LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain > ... > %license UNLICENSE The project seems to the subject to the Unlicense, which has the SPDX identifier "Unlicense". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.html
Revised according to comment #3: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/mochaa-rpms/libsv/raw/rawhide/f/libsv.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/libsv/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06173803-libsv/libsv-1.1-1.fc39.src.rpm
Looks good to me. APPROVED. Note that you'll still need to find a sponsor to bring you into the "packager" group. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuilder/fedora- review/2221908-libsv/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 [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19881 bytes in 1 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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. NOTE: Link to successful scratch build in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105241003 [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsv-1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsv-devel-1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsv-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsv-debugsource-1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsv-1.1-1.fc40.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/tmppsqdj714')] checks: 31, packages: 5 libsv.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsv.so.1.0.0 libsv.spec:57: W: macro-in-%changelog %{autochangelog} libsv-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libsv.so.1 libsv.so.1.0.0 ============= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s ============ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsv-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc40.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/tmpxmib5kmx')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 libsv.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsv.so.1.0.0 libsv-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libsv.so.1 libsv.so.1.0.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/uael/sv/archive/v1.1/sv-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c67489656354f1d2639bbd1d80a74855022047f77775bdc0bcd1a307150924f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c67489656354f1d2639bbd1d80a74855022047f77775bdc0bcd1a307150924f Requires -------- libsv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsv-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsv(x86-64) libsv.so.1()(64bit) libsv-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsv-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libsv: libsv libsv(x86-64) libsv.so.1()(64bit) libsv-devel: libsv-devel libsv-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsv) libsv-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsv-debuginfo libsv-debuginfo(x86-64) libsv.so.1.0.0-1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsv-debugsource: libsv-debugsource libsv-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/rpmbuilder/fedora-review/2221908-libsv/srpm/libsv.spec 2023-08-24 15:42:39.188597216 +0200 +++ /home/rpmbuilder/fedora-review/2221908-libsv/srpm-unpacked/libsv.spec 2023-07-14 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ %forgemeta -Release: %autorelease +Release: %{autorelease} Summary: Semantic versioning for the C language @@ -55,4 +55,3 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog - +%{autochangelog} Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221908 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, PHP, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Hello @mochaa, since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package sponsor before it can be accepted. A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to packaging. You can find all active sponsors here: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/ I created a sponsorship request for you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/586 Please take a look and make sure the information is correct. Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
One thing that I missed in my initial review: the package puts both "libsv.so" and "libsv.so.1" in the -devel package. Only the first, unversioned file belongs there; "libsv.so.1" should go in the main package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
Revised according to [Comment #7](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221908#c7): Spec URL: https://pagure.io/mochaa-rpms/libsv/raw/rawhide/f/libsv.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/libsv/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06343047-libsv/libsv-1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1985202 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6173859 to 6343056
I've sponsored you. ;) You can continue the process and request the new package addition.
This ticket is ready for approval. Further reviews required.
> %files > %license UNLICENSE > %doc README.md > %{_libdir}/libsv.so.1.0.0 > > %files devel > %{_includedir}/sv/ > %{_libdir}/libsv.so.1 > %{_libdir}/libsv.so > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libsv.pc Please move libsv.so.1 from -devel to the main package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #12) > > %files > > %license UNLICENSE > > %doc README.md > > %{_libdir}/libsv.so.1.0.0 > > > > %files devel > > %{_includedir}/sv/ > > %{_libdir}/libsv.so.1 > > %{_libdir}/libsv.so > > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libsv.pc > Please move libsv.so.1 from -devel to the main package. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages This is fixed in comment #8. Comment #9 is not the actual diff due to a force push.
Well I can't see it, neither in the linked spec nor when going to your COPR and extracting the .spec from the latest build.
Sorry for the confusion. This should be up to date now: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/mochaa-rpms/libsv/raw/c743be73f77b2318baad52c5b037367e36d13980/f/libsv.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/libsv/srpm-builds/06344301/libsv-1.1-1.src.rpm
Created attachment 1985324 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6343056 to 6344304
Great! Everything seems fine. Package approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsv
FEDORA-2023-09a5a8398d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-09a5a8398d
FEDORA-2023-09a5a8398d has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.