Spec URL: https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org/bpfilter.spec SRPM URL: https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org/bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: BPF-based packet filtering framework to convert text-format filtering rules into BPF programs attach to your kernel. Fedora Account System Username: naccyde
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=129655951
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org/bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 403 Forbidden error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
Should be fixed now. Spec URL: https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org/bpfilter.spec SRPM URL: https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org/bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8706342 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348709-bpfilter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08706342-bpfilter/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd service file(s) in bpfilter Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets 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.
> %cmake -DNO_DOCS=1 Why not? > %files > [...] > /usr/lib/systemd/system/bpfilter.service This should probably use %{_unitdir}. Other minor issues: 1. Missing "BuildRequires: make". Currently it is pulled transitively by cmake, but that may change. 2. Missing license file. Please add "%license COPYING" to %files.
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #5) > > %cmake -DNO_DOCS=1 > Why not? This refers to the HTML documentation that is published at bpfilter.io. It would pull in various dependencies and not be included in the final package. > > %files > > [...] > > /usr/lib/systemd/system/bpfilter.service > This should probably use %{_unitdir}. > > Other minor issues: > 1. Missing "BuildRequires: make". Currently it is pulled transitively by > cmake, but that may change. > 2. Missing license file. Please add "%license COPYING" to %files. Done! Spec URL: https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org/bpfilter.spec SRPM URL: https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org/bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2078070 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8706342 to 8706755
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8706755 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348709-bpfilter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08706755-bpfilter/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
Almost ready; see nits below 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Public domain". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2348709-bpfilter/licensecheck.txt MurmurHash3 is public domain. Please add the following above the license field # MurmurHash3 (src/external/murmur3.{c,h} is public domain; see # https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/442 License: GPL-2.0-only AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. => nit: normally list license on top of the file list, before %doc [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bpfilter [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bpfilter add %dir %{_includedir}/bpfilter [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). => use both %autorelease and %autochangelog or neither, otherwise some tools will get confused [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. => switch to ExclusiveArch since you're not sure this will work on, say, riscv64 [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 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]: 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 bpfilter [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 0 bytes in 0 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm bpfilter-devel-0.2.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2inss600')] checks: 32, packages: 3 bpfilter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bfcli bpfilter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bpfilter bpfilter.x86_64: W: no-documentation bpfilter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bpfilter-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_lsplo1u')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 bpfilter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bfcli bpfilter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bpfilter bpfilter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation bpfilter.x86_64: W: no-documentation bpfilter.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bpfilter/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 34 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/bpfilter/archive/refs/tags/v0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a4347caa29bf3dd241229921e9253cbb56a181636be5abc1d05c0778c3db2901 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a4347caa29bf3dd241229921e9253cbb56a181636be5abc1d05c0778c3db2901 Requires -------- bpfilter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libbpf.so.1()(64bit) libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.0.1)(64bit) libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.0.6)(64bit) libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.2.0)(64bit) libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.5.0)(64bit) libbpfilter.so.0()(64bit) 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) libnl-3.so.200()(64bit) libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) bpfilter-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config bpfilter(x86-64) libbpfilter.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig Provides -------- bpfilter: bpfilter bpfilter(x86-64) libbpfilter.so.0()(64bit) bpfilter-devel: bpfilter-devel bpfilter-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(bpfilter) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2348709-bpfilter/srpm/bpfilter.spec 2025-03-03 14:01:26.768355559 -0600 +++ /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2348709-bpfilter/srpm-unpacked/bpfilter.spec 2025-02-26 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 @@ -1,2 +1,7 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autochangelog +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: bpfilter Version: 0.2.1 @@ -79,3 +84,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Feb 27 2025 John Doe <packager> - 0.2.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348709 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Python, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The spec file has been updated according to your review. Both the updated spec file and SRPM are available at https://naccyde.fedorapeople.org.
LGTM now, APPROVED I added you to the packagers group, please log out if you're logged in and log back in to src.fedoraproject.org to sync your ACLs. Welcome! Remember to post your introduction to the Fedora development list as well
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bpfilter
FEDORA-2025-923541778f (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-923541778f
FEDORA-2025-923541778f (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-15e3f43ef8 (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-15e3f43ef8
FEDORA-2025-cb26c9ce7d (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-cb26c9ce7d
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-39ccb00d77 (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-39ccb00d77
FEDORA-2025-15e3f43ef8 (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-cb26c9ce7d (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-ff5f6f1ead has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-ff5f6f1ead \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ff5f6f1ead See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-39ccb00d77 (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-ff5f6f1ead (bpfilter-0.2.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.