spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/lhasa-0.4.0-2/lhasa.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/lhasa-0.4.0-2/lhasa-0.4.0-2.fc39.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108233325 Description: Lhasa provides a library for handling LHA archives, as well as a free replacement of the LHA command-line tool. Fedora Account System Username: suve
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6577371 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246718-lhasa/srpm-builds/06577371/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.
Taking this review
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 1561 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2246718-lhasa/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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8382 bytes in 2 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lhasa- libs , lhasa-devel [c]: Package functions as described. [c]: Latest version is packaged. [c]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _configure ./autogen.sh [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lhasa-0.4.0-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm lhasa-libs-0.4.0-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm lhasa-devel-0.4.0-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm lhasa-doc-0.4.0-2.fc40.noarch.rpm lhasa-debuginfo-0.4.0-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm lhasa-debugsource-0.4.0-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm lhasa-0.4.0-2.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/tmp86idyk8v')] checks: 31, packages: 7 lhasa.spec:61: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-jquery) lhasa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lhasa-libs-debuginfo-0.4.0-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm lhasa-debuginfo-0.4.0-2.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/tmpo0g0_uj8')] 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: 7 lhasa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fragglet/lhasa/archive/v0.4.0/lhasa-v0.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0ef13e6511044ecb50483b06e630eaa7867473ec563204fe0098c00beeca4f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0ef13e6511044ecb50483b06e630eaa7867473ec563204fe0098c00beeca4f8 Requires -------- lhasa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lhasa-libs(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) liblhasa.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lhasa-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lhasa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config lhasa-libs(x86-64) liblhasa.so.0()(64bit) lhasa-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lhasa-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lhasa-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lhasa: lhasa lhasa(x86-64) lhasa-libs: lhasa-libs lhasa-libs(x86-64) liblhasa.so.0()(64bit) lhasa-devel: lhasa-devel lhasa-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(liblhasa) lhasa-doc: bundled(js-jquery) lhasa-doc lhasa-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lhasa-debuginfo lhasa-debuginfo(x86-64) lhasa-debugsource: lhasa-debugsource lhasa-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246718 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, fonts, R, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _configure ./autogen.sh This is flagging the use of %define to make %configure run autogen.sh instead of configure. That's clever, and probably fine, but you may want to consider just running autoreconf -ivf before %configure explicitly for clarity instead. lhasa.spec:61: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-jquery) If you can figure out which actual version this is using of jquery, it'd be good to add it here. I see you have # Explicitly require libs in the main package Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in the main package -- this shouldn't be needed as shared libraries are usually picked up automatically. If that isn't working properly, I'd expand on the comment and clarify why this is needed. In the %files for the library you have %{_libdir}/liblhasa.so.* which is too greedy -- you'll want %{_libdir}/liblhasa.so.0{,.*} instead. None of these are major issues and they can all be sorted out on import, so it's APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lhasa
> Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ah, right. Will fix this. > lhasa.spec:61: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-jquery) > If you can figure out which actual version this is using of jquery, it'd be good to add it here. The jQuery copy does not come from Lhasa source archive, but is rather inserted by Doxygen when it generates the HTML documentation. Hence, the version of jQuery depends on Doxygen and will change over time. I think it's better to leave this unversioned. > I see you have > > # Explicitly require libs in the main package > Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > in the main package -- this shouldn't be needed as shared libraries are usually picked up automatically. If that isn't working properly, I'd expand on the comment and clarify why this is needed. Someone required this in a previous package review of mine. Looking at the packaging guidelines, I couldn't find any official requirement to have this. I guess one motivation to put that line may be so that the EVR of the main package and libs have to match - otherwise you can install an older/newer version of the libs package, as long as the SONAME matches. > In the %files for the library you have > %{_libdir}/liblhasa.so.* > which is too greedy -- you'll want %{_libdir}/liblhasa.so.0{,.*} instead. Right. Good point. Will change this.
FEDORA-2023-c1fc0dcf2e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c1fc0dcf2e
FEDORA-2023-f4daf9382b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f4daf9382b
FEDORA-2023-f4daf9382b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-f4daf9382b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f4daf9382b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c1fc0dcf2e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c1fc0dcf2e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c1fc0dcf2e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c1fc0dcf2e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-f4daf9382b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.