Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/0install/0install.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/0install/0install-2.18-1.fc41.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Zero Install is a decentralized cross-distribution software installation system. Other features include full support for shared libraries (with a SAT solver for dependency resolution), sharing between users, and integration with native platform package managers. It supports both binary and source packages, and works on Linux, macOS, Unix and Windows systems. NOTE: Only the ocaml-0install-solver package is built at the present time.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7732631 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2297779-0install/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07732631-0install/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/0install Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Package has .a files: ocaml-0install-solver-devel. Does not provide -static: ocaml-0install-solver-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries 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 just note that fedora-review complains that the package already exists, and indeed 0install is a dead package, retired around Fedora 30: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/0install/tree/rawhide I don't know if this will cause problems / change the process later, but this does need a full review to get (back) into Fedora so that's what I'll do.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [Some issues were raised by fedora-review, but they were all false positives.] ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 391 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/review/2297779-0install/licensecheck.txt I checked the upstream sources and it's clear that they intend LGPLv2.1+, but they don't unfortunately include clear licenses in the individual source files. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64/ocaml, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share, /usr/lib64, /usr, /usr/lib I don't know what fedora-review is up to here, but that's obviously bogus. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64/ocaml, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share, /usr/lib64, /usr, /usr/lib Same as above. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Yes, uses dune. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Uses autochangelog. [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. There was an older version of 0install but that was 10+ releases ago so this doesn't apply. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 15130 bytes in 2 files. [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 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]: 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 ocaml-0install-solver , ocaml-0install-solver-devel Despite what fedora-review says, this is actually correct. [?]: Package functions as described. It will be used to build further packages, so we'll find out. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-0install-solver-2.18-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ocaml-0install-solver-devel-2.18-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm 0install-2.18-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpa7v1xag7')] checks: 32, packages: 3 ocaml-0install-solver-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/0install-solver/zeroinstall_solver.a 0install.src: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') ocaml-0install-solver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') ocaml-0install-solver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('opam', '%description -l en_US opam -> spam, opal, Spam') ocaml-0install-solver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s These warnings are all bogus. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 2 ocaml-0install-solver-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/0install-solver/zeroinstall_solver.a ocaml-0install-solver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') ocaml-0install-solver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('opam', '%description -l en_US opam -> spam, opal, Spam') ocaml-0install-solver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/0install/0install/releases/download/v2.18/0install-2.18.tbz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef394667d8161feee04566591eacb42fb8282e84bbe1103d6bdd8503ef10f227 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef394667d8161feee04566591eacb42fb8282e84bbe1103d6bdd8503ef10f227 https://github.com/0install/0install/releases/download/v2.18/0install-2.18.tbz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 648c4b318c1a26dfcb44065c226ab8ca723795924ad80a3bf39ae1ce0e9920c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 648c4b318c1a26dfcb44065c226ab8ca723795924ad80a3bf39ae1ce0e9920c3 Requires -------- ocaml-0install-solver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(CamlinternalLazy) ocaml(CamlinternalOO) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__Hashtbl) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Lazy) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__ListLabels) ocaml(Stdlib__Map) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Option) ocaml(Stdlib__Queue) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__Set) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Diagnostics) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__S) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Sat) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Solver_core) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-0install-solver-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(CamlinternalLazy) ocaml(CamlinternalOO) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__Hashtbl) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Lazy) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__ListLabels) ocaml(Stdlib__Map) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Option) ocaml(Stdlib__Queue) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__Set) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Diagnostics) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__S) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Sat) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Solver_core) ocaml-0install-solver(x86-64) ocamlx(CamlinternalFormat) ocamlx(CamlinternalLazy) ocamlx(CamlinternalOO) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Array) ocamlx(Stdlib__Domain) ocamlx(Stdlib__Format) ocamlx(Stdlib__Hashtbl) ocamlx(Stdlib__List) ocamlx(Stdlib__ListLabels) ocamlx(Stdlib__Map) ocamlx(Stdlib__Option) ocamlx(Stdlib__Queue) ocamlx(Stdlib__Random) ocamlx(Stdlib__Set) ocamlx(Stdlib__String) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__Diagnostics) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__Sat) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__Solver_core) Provides -------- ocaml-0install-solver: ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Diagnostics) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__S) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Sat) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Solver_core) ocaml-0install-solver ocaml-0install-solver(x86-64) ocaml-0install-solver-devel: ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Diagnostics) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__S) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Sat) ocaml(Zeroinstall_solver__Solver_core) ocaml-0install-solver-devel ocaml-0install-solver-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__Diagnostics) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__S) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__Sat) ocamlx(Zeroinstall_solver__Solver_core) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2297779 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, SugarActivity, Python, Java, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
*** Approved by rjones ***
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #3) > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64/ocaml, > /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share, /usr/lib64, /usr, /usr/lib > > I don't know what fedora-review is up to here, but that's obviously bogus. That looks like bug 2264345. Thank you for the review!
Version 2.18 has been built in Rawhide, after 3 attempts at unblocking it in Rawhide. Success, finally!