Spec URL: https://pagure.io/libirc/raw/rawhide/f/libirc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/libirc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06667873-libirc/libirc-0.2.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: libirc is IRC client library for C. It supports parsing and creating messages and connecting to servers (without password authentication). I'm using this library on my own IRC client and I have push access to the upstream (I have contributed several patches for the library). Fedora Account System Username: lihis
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2250534-libirc/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. [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]: 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 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]: 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 35 bytes in 1 files. [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libirc- devel [?]: 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]: 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: libirc-0.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libirc-devel-0.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libirc-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libirc-debugsource-0.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libirc-0.2.1-1.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/tmpt_jnd7ig')] checks: 31, packages: 5 =========== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libirc-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmphpjk4r4d')] 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: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 4 libirc-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libric', '%description -l en_US libric -> licorice') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/n0la/libirc/archive/refs/tags/0.2.1.tar.gz#/libirc-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 174108b6a444c365b12f5e75c5a6aab54185060b51f424d70e8e42e6e6040d86 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 174108b6a444c365b12f5e75c5a6aab54185060b51f424d70e8e42e6e6040d86 Requires -------- libirc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libirc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libirc libirc.so.0()(64bit) libirc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libirc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libirc: libirc libirc(x86-64) libirc.so.0()(64bit) libirc-devel: libirc-devel libirc-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libirc) libirc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libirc-debuginfo libirc-debuginfo(x86-64) libirc.so.0.2.1-0.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libirc-debugsource: libirc-debugsource libirc-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2250534-libirc/srpm/libirc.spec 2023-12-05 19:21:36.980419675 +0100 +++ /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2250534-libirc/srpm-unpacked/libirc.spec 2023-11-19 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: libirc Version: 0.2.1 @@ -50,4 +60,25 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Nov 19 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.2.1-1 +- Upstream release 0.2.1 + +* Fri Nov 03 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.2.0-5 +- Move unversioned .so to -devel package + +* Wed Nov 01 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.2.0-4 +- Add project name to source tarball + +* Wed Nov 01 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.2.0-3 +- Add patch to fix message params parsing + +* Sun Oct 08 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.2.0-2 +- Add patch for setting SONAME + +* Sun Sep 24 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.2.0-1 +- Upstream release 0.2.0 + +* Sun Sep 24 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.1-2 +- Use %%{autorelease} +* Wed Apr 19 2023 Tomi Lähteenmäki <lihis> - 0.1-1 +- Version 0.1 Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2250534 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Java, Perl, R, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Found just two minor issues: [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libirc- devel %package -n libirc-devel is not necessary, just use %package devel %description devel %files %license COPYING %doc README.md %{_libdir}/libirc.so.0 %{_libdir}/libirc.so.%{version} %files devel %{_includedir}/irc %{_datadir}/pkgconfig/libirc.pc %{_libdir}/libirc.so I would also include %url in Source0: Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz But since none of that are blocking the review, I am passing it right away.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libirc
FEDORA-2023-070e36410a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-070e36410a
FEDORA-2023-070e36410a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Thanks for the review!