Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dnsjit.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dnsjit-1.4.0-2.fc42.src.rpm Description: dnsjit is a combination of parts taken from dsc, dnscap, drool, and put together around Lua to create a script-based engine for easy capturing, parsing and statistics gathering of DNS message while also providing facilities for replaying DNS traffic. Fedora Account System Username: pemensik
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125533621
I have found issues with s390x build, although it should work. Reported in bug #2323980
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8215106 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2323979-dnsjit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08215106-dnsjit/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++/ 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.
Notes: when package is build the warning for already existent README.md and CHANGES is shown. I think that the %doc README.md and %doc CHANGES is not needed, because the makefile AFAIK creates the files by itself. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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 General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 87 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/dnsjit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 89394 bytes in 14 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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). [ ]: 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. [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). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- ============================================================== 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 dnsjit.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dsc', '%description -l en_US dsc -> dc, disc, doc') dnsjit.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dnscap', '%description -l en_US dnscap -> landscape') dnsjit.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/dnsjit/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/dnsjit/LICENSE ========================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s ========================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: 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: 3 dnsjit.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dsc', '%description -l en_US dsc -> dc, disc, doc') dnsjit.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dnscap', '%description -l en_US dnscap -> landscape') dnsjit-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dsc', '%description -l en_US dsc -> dc, disc, doc') dnsjit-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dnscap', '%description -l en_US dnscap -> landscape') dnsjit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dnsjit.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/dnsjit/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/dnsjit/LICENSE ======================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 10 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 s ========================= Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DNS-OARC/dnsjit/archive/v1.4.0/dnsjit-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 21c560a974761fc8d34c52ec3b94863657163e3ad112830bf212d327b5407504 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 21c560a974761fc8d34c52ec3b94863657163e3ad112830bf212d327b5407504 Requires -------- dnsjit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) liblmdb.so.0.0.0()(64bit) libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.9)(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dnsjit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ck-devel dnsjit(x86-64) gnutls-devel libpcap-devel libzstd-devel lmdb-devel luajit-devel lz4-devel xz-devel zlib-devel dnsjit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnsjit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dnsjit: dnsjit dnsjit(x86-64) dnsjit-devel: dnsjit-devel dnsjit-devel(x86-64) dnsjit-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) dnsjit-debuginfo dnsjit-debuginfo(x86-64) dnsjit-debugsource: dnsjit-debugsource dnsjit-debugsource(x86-64)
Thanks Petr for the proxy review. @pmensik: - please add build requires for the compiler, it seems gcc is used. - if you plan to use this SPEC only on Fedora/RHEL you may to drop the SUSE macros - you may package the included examples, it may be useful for somebody
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #5) > Thanks Petr for the proxy review. > > @pmensik: > - please add build requires for the compiler, it seems gcc is used. > - if you plan to use this SPEC only on Fedora/RHEL you may to drop the SUSE > macros > - you may package the included examples, it may be useful for somebody There are some examples how to create own modules in the examples/modules, but I am not sure whether it makes sense to package it.