Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/btrfs-efi.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/btrfs-efi-20230328%5egit20240520.c134e61-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: EFI driver to enable Btrfs support. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Taking this review
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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 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 General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License and/or zlib License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License", "zlib License". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2308810-btrfs-efi/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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 3006 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: btrfs-efi-unsigned-x64-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-1.fc42.noarch.rpm btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-1.fc42.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/tmp5q0hj580')] checks: 32, packages: 2 btrfs-efi.spec:47: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{name}-driver-%{efi_arch} btrfs-efi.spec:50: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(lzo) btrfs-efi.spec:51: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(xxhash) btrfs-efi.spec:53: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(zstd) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/maharmstone/btrfs-efi/archive/c134e616128d64c52c7634f77dbc2919e013fe5d/btrfs-efi-c134e616128d64c52c7634f77dbc2919e013fe5d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d4e85b52e294e8bf2c1f78da77f94cd50d6cf13b03e69c8a4867fcafc077d5f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d4e85b52e294e8bf2c1f78da77f94cd50d6cf13b03e69c8a4867fcafc077d5f0 Requires -------- btrfs-efi-unsigned-x64 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): efi-filesystem Provides -------- btrfs-efi-unsigned-x64: btrfs-efi-driver-x64 btrfs-efi-unsigned-x64 bundled(lzo) bundled(xxhash) bundled(zlib) bundled(zstd) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2308810 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, R, Python, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The only thing of note here is [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. which IMO is justified in this case, as we're building an EFI driver. If you can, please add comments to document provenance and licensing of the individual bundled libraries, and ideally the reference version. Given that the overall package license is already correct and there are no other issues, I'll approve the package in the meantime.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/btrfs-efi
FEDORA-2024-90ea34ebb0 (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-90ea34ebb0
FEDORA-2024-cf3f6f74ea (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cf3f6f74ea
FEDORA-2024-4d0a5850e0 (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4d0a5850e0
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-61f014bc6c (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-61f014bc6c
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-02c3645e9a (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-2.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-02c3645e9a
FEDORA-2024-90ea34ebb0 (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-2.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-4d0a5850e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4d0a5850e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4d0a5850e0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-02c3645e9a (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-2.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-cf3f6f74ea (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240520.c134e61-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-9a86e5977a (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240824.496ae85-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-9a86e5977a
FEDORA-2024-9a86e5977a has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-9a86e5977a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-9a86e5977a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-9a86e5977a (btrfs-efi-20230328^git20240824.496ae85-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.