Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/rpms/review/msm-cros-efs-loader/msm-cros-efs-loader.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/rpms/review/msm-cros-efs-loader/msm-cros-efs-loader-1.0.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: EFS loader for Qualcomm-based Chrome OS devices Fedora Account System Username: javierm Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6998766 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2263237-msm-cros-efs-loader/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06998766-msm-cros-efs-loader/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #1) > Copr build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6998766 > (succeeded) > > Review template: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- > review-2263237-msm-cros-efs-loader/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06998766-msm-cros- > efs-loader/fedora-review/review.txt > > Found issues: > > - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3+'. It seems that you are using the old > Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to > SPDX. > Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 > I've fixed the license and now the Spec files uses License: GPL-3.0-or-later
The package build just installs a script in /usr/bin so I'm not sure why we need any of these build reqs: BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: qrtr-devel BuildRequires: systemd-devel BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #3) > The package build just installs a script in /usr/bin so I'm not sure why we > need any of these build reqs: > BuildRequires: gcc > BuildRequires: make > BuildRequires: qrtr-devel > BuildRequires: systemd-devel > BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros Ups, sorry I copied the spec file from the rmtfs package and forgot to remove these. Fixed now, thanks for pointing out!
A few things I'd like you to fix before continuing the review: 1) make the rpm noarch as it doesn't ship any binary 2) use `-p` when calling install, preserving the timestamp as in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps
(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #5) > A few things I'd like you to fix before continuing the review: > 1) make the rpm noarch as it doesn't ship any binary > 2) use `-p` when calling install, preserving the timestamp as in > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps Thanks a lot for your feedback! I've fixed the two issues you pointed out.
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: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sbonazzo/NotBackedUp/reviews/javier/2263237-msm-cros-efs- loader/licensecheck.txt The tool fails to detect GPLv3 because of the following diffs: --- gpl-3.0.txt 2017-09-30 09:16:26.000000000 +0200 +++ LICENSE 2023-08-04 12:26:17.000000000 +0200 @@ -634,2 +634,2 @@ - <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> - Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> + msm-cros-efs-loader + Copyright (C) 2023 jenneron @@ -655 +655 @@ - <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> + <program> Copyright (C) 2023 jenneron [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: 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). The diffs are due to rpmautospec being used [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: msm-cros-efs-loader-1.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm msm-cros-efs-loader-1.0.2-1.fc40.src.rpm =========================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp29pcq_oe')] checks: 32, packages: 2 msm-cros-efs-loader.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msm-cros-efs-loader msm-cros-efs-loader.noarch: W: no-documentation msm-cros-efs-loader.spec: W: no-%build-section ====================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 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: 1 msm-cros-efs-loader.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msm-cros-efs-loader msm-cros-efs-loader.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/msm-cros-efs-loader/-/archive/v1.0.2/msm-cros-efs-loader-v1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 97cfbb82cbbb715019a790a59af4dc3ba6bd07c037ea892ba4dc092259bb6301 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97cfbb82cbbb715019a790a59af4dc3ba6bd07c037ea892ba4dc092259bb6301 Requires -------- msm-cros-efs-loader (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- msm-cros-efs-loader: msm-cros-efs-loader Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sbonazzo/NotBackedUp/reviews/javier/2263237-msm-cros-efs-loader/srpm/msm-cros-efs-loader.spec 2024-02-09 11:15:50.229160492 +0100 +++ /home/sbonazzo/NotBackedUp/reviews/javier/2263237-msm-cros-efs-loader/srpm-unpacked/msm-cros-efs-loader.spec 2024-02-09 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.8) +## 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: msm-cros-efs-loader Version: 1.0.2 @@ -25,3 +35,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Feb 09 2024 John Doe <packager> - 1.0.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2263237 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Haskell, Ruby, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Package is approved
(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #8) > Package is approved Thanks for your review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/msm-cros-efs-loader
Build is now available on Rawhide and Fedora 40: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c39776b8b9