Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theyoyojo/redfish-finder-review/master/redfish-finder.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/theyoyojo/redfish-finder-review/raw/master/redfish-finder-0.4-6.fc41.src.rpm Description: Utility for parsing SMBIOS information and configuring canonical BMC access Fedora Account System Username: theyoyojo Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=116748477 Old package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1634912 Requesting to revive redfish-finder in Fedora
Hey, can someone take a look at this?
> Release: 6%{?dist} You could use %autorelease > License: GPLv2 Please use SPDX format > Source0: %url/archive/V%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Drop the 0 after Source nowadays > Patch0: redfish-finder-python3.patch Document the patch, what is it for? Is it upstreamed? If yes link to it. > Requires: python3 NetworkManager dmidecode Split this one per line please. > BuildRequires: systemd Unless rare can, you generally just need: BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros > %{?systemd_requires} This is rarely needed too The %{?systemd_requires} macro is a shortcut to require systemd for the %pre, %post, and %postun scriptlets. Note that those dependencies are not required for the %systemd_{post,preun,postun_with_restart,user_post,user_preun} macros listed above. > %changelog You could use %autochangelog here too.
SPDX: GPL-2.0-only > BuildRequires: systemd Unless rare cases, you generally just need: BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redfish-finder See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/redfish-finder/review-redfish- finder/licensecheck.txt [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. [X]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in redfish-finder [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 2628 bytes in 1 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [-]: %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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: redfish-finder-0.4-6.fc41.noarch.rpm redfish-finder-0.4-6.fc41.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/tmpuatovehl')] checks: 32, packages: 2 redfish-finder.noarch: E: spelling-error ('localhost', '%description -l en_US localhost -> local host, local-host, holocaust') redfish-finder.src: E: spelling-error ('localhost', '%description -l en_US localhost -> local host, local-host, holocaust') ========================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s =========================================================================
I updated the spec and SRPM per your comments: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theyoyojo/redfish-finder-review/master/redfish-finder.spec https://github.com/theyoyojo/redfish-finder-review/raw/master/redfish-finder-0.4-1.fc40.src.rpm I'm using an existing package name because I'd like to un-orphan the unmaintained redfish-finder package.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7473475 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2276535-redfish-finder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07473475-redfish-finder/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redfish-finder Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Package approved.