Spec URL: https://porcupinefactory.org/data/erlang-stringprep.spec SRPM URL: https://porcupinefactory.org/data/erlang-stringprep-1.0.29-7.fc39.src.rpm Description: Stringprep is a framework for preparing Unicode test strings in order to increase the likelihood that string input and string comparison work. The principle are defined in RFC-3454: Preparation of Internationalized Strings. This library is leverage Erlang native NIF mechanism to provide extremely fast and efficient processing. Fedora Account System Username: rhn-mk1
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7483791 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2283089-erlang-stringprep/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07483791-erlang-stringprep/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'ASL 2.0 and TCL'. 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 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-stringprep 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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2034913 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7483791 to 7483818
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7483818 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2283089-erlang-stringprep/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07483818-erlang-stringprep/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-stringprep 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.
I'll review it.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-stringprep See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ^^^ This one is intentional. This is a re-review since the package was orphaned for a while. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. THis is a "plugin" library which is supposed to be dlopened by Erlang VM. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 (ASL 2.0 and TCL/Tk). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x but...]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please add note in the comments right above the "License:" field that two files derived from TCL/Tk distribution. Not a blocker though. [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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 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 4673 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [untested]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [untested]: 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. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: erlang-stringprep-1.0.29-7.fc41.x86_64.rpm erlang-stringprep-debuginfo-1.0.29-7.fc41.x86_64.rpm erlang-stringprep-debugsource-1.0.29-7.fc41.x86_64.rpm erlang-stringprep-1.0.29-7.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/tmpndlm6r52')] checks: 32, packages: 4 erlang-stringprep.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/stringprep-1.0.29/priv/lib/stringprep.so ^^^ False positive. Can be ignored safely. erlang-stringprep.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.29-1 ['1.0.29-7.fc41', '1.0.29-7'] ^^^ Please address it. Your "Release:" field in spec should be either 1 or %autorelease. erlang-stringprep.x86_64: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/stringprep-1.0.29/ebin/stringprep.beam /builddir/build/BUILD/stringprep-1.0.29/src/stringprep.erl erlang-stringprep.x86_64: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/stringprep-1.0.29/ebin/stringprep_app.beam /builddir/build/BUILD/stringprep-1.0.29/src/stringprep_app.erl erlang-stringprep.x86_64: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/stringprep-1.0.29/ebin/stringprep_sup.beam /builddir/build/BUILD/stringprep-1.0.29/src/stringprep_sup.erl ^^^ False positivs. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: erlang-stringprep-debuginfo-1.0.29-7.fc41.x86_64.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/tmp4vbcz44a')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "erlang-stringprep". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "erlang-stringprep-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "erlang-stringprep-debugsource". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- erlang-stringprep: /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/stringprep-1.0.29/priv/lib/stringprep.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/processone/stringprep/archive/1.0.29/stringprep-1.0.29.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b07daf2148829d513caf2931d463550e70252a78ef99696dcf444d61d93bf940 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b07daf2148829d513caf2931d463550e70252a78ef99696dcf444d61d93bf940 Requires -------- erlang-stringprep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang(erl_nif_version) erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-kernel(x86-64) erlang-p1_utils erlang-stdlib(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) erlang-stringprep-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-stringprep-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- erlang-stringprep: erlang-p1_stringprep erlang-stringprep erlang-stringprep(x86-64) erlang-stringprep-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) erlang-stringprep-debuginfo erlang-stringprep-debuginfo(x86-64) erlang-stringprep-debugsource: erlang-stringprep-debugsource erlang-stringprep-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name erlang-stringprep --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, R, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ============ = APPROVED = ============ Btw is that your first package and you need a sponsorship?
Spec URL: https://porcupinefactory.org/data/erlang-stringprep.spec SRPM URL: https://porcupinefactory.org/data/erlang-stringprep-1.0.29-1.fc39.src.rpm Yes, that's my first Fedora package, and that's right, I was told that I need a sponsor to continue.
Ok, I've just sponsored you. Now please follow this instruction on this package's unretirement. * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming
Package was never imported. The ticket status is being reset, since creating the repository will require a fresh approval. Let us know if you're still interested in this package.
I'm worried that I don't have enough time or expertise either to go through the breaucracy side or the actual packaging. For now I created a copr to see if I can at least do the packaging right, but the answer is a clear "no": https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rhn-mk1/stringprep/builds/ So unless I get a lot of handholding, I don't think I can actually maintain a package. Sorry for the trouble.