Spec URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/byebyebios/byebyebios.spec SRPM URL: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/byebyebios/byebyebios-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: The byebyebios package provides an x86 boot sector that should be copied to any disk image that does not intend to support use of BIOS firmware. It will display a message to the user, on the first serial port and VGA console, informing them of the requirement to boot using UEFI firmware. Fedora Account System Username: berrange Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107651443
Taking this review.
Initial spec review: > # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT-0 > # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2023 Red Hat This is unnecessary, given the FPCA and current structure. You can keep it, but it's also going to become wrong very quickly if other people touch the spec file. > # No one is attaching GDB to a boot sector > %global debug_package %{nil} You already made the package noarch, so this is not needed. > Release: 1 You need the DistTag. Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ > Source: https://gitlab.com/berrange/byebyebios/-/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz > Url: https://gitlab.com/berrange/byebyebios You can de-dupe this like so: URL: https://gitlab.com/berrange/byebyebios Source: %{url}/-/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > Initial spec review: > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT-0 > > # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2023 Red Hat > > This is unnecessary, given the FPCA and current structure. You can keep it, > but it's also going to become wrong very quickly if other people touch the > spec file. Yep will remove. > > # No one is attaching GDB to a boot sector > > %global debug_package %{nil} > > You already made the package noarch, so this is not needed. Ok > > Release: 1 > > You need the DistTag. Ok > > Source: https://gitlab.com/berrange/byebyebios/-/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz > > Url: https://gitlab.com/berrange/byebyebios > > You can de-dupe this like so: > > URL: https://gitlab.com/berrange/byebyebios > Source: %{url}/-/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz Oh, yes, that's nice.
Updated Spec: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/byebyebios/byebyebios.spec SRPM: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/byebyebios/byebyebios-1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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: "MIT No Attribution", "MIT License and/or MIT No Attribution", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2244644-byebyebios/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/byebyebios [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/byebyebios [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. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: 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. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: byebyebios-1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm byebyebios-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ========================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3o78lh_9')] checks: 31, packages: 2 =========================================================== 2 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/berrange/byebyebios/-/archive/v1.0/byebyebios-v1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c32bf347956d4252a25c49fc1304d8b0fc9fa1939c143eb37e720e99e6783f5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c32bf347956d4252a25c49fc1304d8b0fc9fa1939c143eb37e720e99e6783f5 Requires -------- byebyebios (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 Provides -------- byebyebios: byebyebios Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244644 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, R, Python, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated snip > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/byebyebios > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/byebyebios I have updated the spec/srpm at the same URL, adding '%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}'
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} > %{_datadir}/%{name}/nouefi.txt > %{_datadir}/%{name}/bootstub.bin You could also simplify this to "%{_datadir}/%{name}/"
Anyway, this should be all good now, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #7) > > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/nouefi.txt > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/bootstub.bin > > You could also simplify this to "%{_datadir}/%{name}/" I generally prefer to be explicit in these scenarios, so that if a file is unexpectedly not installed by 'make', we fail the RPM build instead of silently creating the RPM with missing files.
(In reply to Daniel Berrangé from comment #9) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #7) > > > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} > > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/nouefi.txt > > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/bootstub.bin > > > > You could also simplify this to "%{_datadir}/%{name}/" > > I generally prefer to be explicit in these scenarios, so that if a file is > unexpectedly not installed by 'make', we fail the RPM build instead of > silently creating the RPM with missing files. Fine with me. :)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/byebyebios