Spec URL: https://github.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/blob/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-41-x86_64/08853592-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: RAUC is a lightweight update client that runs on your Embedded Linux device and reliably controls the procedure of updating your device with a new firmware revision. RAUC is also the tool on your host system that lets you create, inspect and modify update artifacts for your device. Service is not installed as that is only needed on device. Fedora Account System Username: bax This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I have create a few COPR packages to get some experience with RPM packaging. Other related open source work include contributions to various Linux kernel subsystems and package (recipes) maintenance in PTXdist (https://ptxdist.de/index.html) a build system for embedded Linux firmware images. Latest COPR build for F40, F41 and F42: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bax/rauc/build/8853592/
I have disabled rauc package tests as some fail but likely due to mockbuild sandbox. Test failures if enabling tests for RAUC: - Failed to run mksquashfs: Failed to execute child process ?mksquashfs? (No such file or directory) (g-exec-error-quark, 8) - Failed to spawn child process ?dbus-daemon? (No such file or directory) (g-exec-error-quark, 19) - Making filesystem failed: Failed to execute child process ?/sbin/mkfs.ext4? (No such file or directory) FAIL - Transfer failed: Could not resolve host: rauc.io (g-io-error-quark, 0) FAIL ``` ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― 22/23 nbd SKIP 0.01s 0 subtests passed 23/23 boot_switch SKIP 0.01s 0 subtests passed Summary of Failures: 4/23 bundle ERROR 0.12s killed by signal 6 SIGABRT 11/23 install ERROR 0.22s killed by signal 5 SIGTRAP 14/23 service ERROR 0.09s killed by signal 6 SIGABRT 19/23 update_handler ERROR 0.15s killed by signal 5 SIGTRAP 21/23 network ERROR 0.09s killed by signal 6 SIGABRT Ok: 15 Expected Fail: 0 Fail: 5 Unexpected Pass: 0 Skipped: 3 Timeout: 0 ```
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8853603 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08853603-rauc/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - openssl-devel-engine is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ 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.
Link to spec file needs to allow download of the spec file, not an html rendered version. spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-41-x86_64/08853592-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc41.src.rpm
Yes, that is my mistake. I have also used the raw link when building spec from SCM in COPR. I have created an upstream issue for the openssl-devel-engine is deprecated issue. OpenSSL 3.0.0 has deprecated the ENGINE API #1688 https://github.com/rauc/rauc/issues/1688
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-41-x86_64/08859137-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc41.src.rpm I have created a patch that remove openssl engine support from rauc and remove BuildRequires openssl-devel-engine from spec file. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc_no_openssl_engine.patch
Created attachment 2083333 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8853603 to 8859152
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8859152 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08859152-rauc/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.
Tests that do not need network can probably be run. There is an option to disable them: https://github.com/rauc/rauc/blob/master/test/meson.build You may also need to install python3dist(pytest)
I had to add 2 more patches as RAUC expect a Debian host environment where it interact with Grub using grub-editenv where on Fedora it's called grub2-editenv. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc_bootloader_grub_editenv.patch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc_grub_editenv.patch Not sure I have added the test dependencies correctly in the spec file, but the tests are now running: --- Ok: 35 Expected Fail: 0 Fail: 0 Unexpected Pass: 0 Skipped: 3 Timeout: 0 --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-41-x86_64/08882637-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2084107 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8859152 to 8882647
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8882647 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08882647-rauc/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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 have now added rawhide as well to copr builds, so I can spot these kind of errors. All tests parse on F40, F41 and F42, but on rawhide I get 5 errors like this: ``` ▶ 6/38 /config-file/bootloaders - rauc-FATAL-WARNING: Failed to calculate free OpenSSL X509 purpose id FAIL ▶ 6/38 ERROR 6/38 config_file ERROR 0.15s killed by signal 5 SIGTRAP >>> MALLOC_PERTURB_=193 MESON_BUILD_DIR=/builddir/build/BUILD/rauc-1.14-build/rauc-1.14/redhat-linux-build MESON_TEST_ITERATION=1 UBSAN_OPTIONS=halt_on_error=1:abort_on_error=1:print_summary=1:print_stacktrace=1 MSAN_OPTIONS=halt_on_error=1:abort_on_error=1:print_summary=1:print_stacktrace=1 ASAN_OPTIONS=halt_on_error=1:abort_on_error=1:print_summary=1 /builddir/build/BUILD/rauc-1.14-build/rauc-1.14/redhat-linux-build/test/config_file-test ``` I have disabled the failing tests as I cannot figure out what the difference between F42 and rawhide is. The tests do not directly interact with OpenSSL so I am a bit lost. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/08895281-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2084566 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8882647 to 8895289
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8895289 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08895289-rauc/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.
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: [ ]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "FSF All Permissive License". 411 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/rauc/2356980-rauc/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces, /usr/share/dbus-1 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10498 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: rauc-1.14-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm rauc-1.14-1.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/tmpq4owesbs')] checks: 32, packages: 2 rauc.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog rauc.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rauc-debuginfo-1.14-1.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/tmpn84tiktl')] checks: 32, packages: 1 rauc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 2 rauc.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog rauc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog rauc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/rauc/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rauc/rauc/releases/download/v1.14/rauc-1.14.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c Requires -------- rauc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1()(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.26)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.28)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.31)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- rauc: rauc rauc(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/rauc/2356980-rauc/srpm/rauc.spec 2025-05-19 09:05:37.931437366 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/rauc/2356980-rauc/srpm-unpacked/rauc.spec 2025-04-12 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -7,17 +7,7 @@ URL: https://rauc.io/ Source0: https://github.com/rauc/%{name}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz - -# https://github.com/rauc/rauc/issues/1688 -# https://github.com/rauc/rauc/pull/1690 Patch0: rauc_no_openssl_engine.patch - -# Debian: grub_editenv -# Fedora: grub2_editenv -# Upstream work has not yet begun Patch1: rauc_bootloader_grub_editenv.patch Patch2: rauc_grub_editenv.patch - -# 5 tests does not work on F43/Rawhide due to OpenSSL x509 issue -# Uptream work has not yet begun Patch3: rauc_disable_log_failed_calc_free_x509.patch Patch4: rauc_disable_config_failed_calc_free_x509.patch @@ -92,14 +82,13 @@ %files -%{_bindir}/rauc -%{_datadir}/dbus-1/interfaces/de.pengutronix.rauc.Installer.xml +/usr/bin/rauc +/usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces/de.pengutronix.rauc.Installer.xml %license COPYING -%doc README.rst CHANGES -%{_mandir}/man1/rauc.1.* +%doc README.rst +/usr/share/man/man1/rauc.1.gz %changelog * Sat Apr 12 2025 Bruno Thomsen <bruno.thomsen> - Disable 5 tests that does not work on F43/rawhide -- Update files section with macros and add patch comments * Wed Apr 9 2025 Bruno Thomsen <bruno.thomsen> Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2356980 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, Haskell, Java, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comment: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132955103 Does not build on i686 and s390x b) %{_datadir}/dbus-1/interfaces/de.pengutronix.rauc.Installer.xml contains: <!-- License note: This file is considered data and thus no license is needed for any usage. --> Perhaps check if upstream can put this under a CC-0 license or similar. c) Please ensure /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces, /usr/share/dbus-1 are owned. May want to require dbus-common
Sorry, I forget to trigger a build on Bugzilla along with previous RPM spec update :( I have updated the spec again and triggered new COPR builds, changes: - More patch refinement and upstream status have been added - Add dbus-common dependency as suggested - Opened upstream issue about license on xml file - RPM lint error incorrect-fsf-address has been fixed upstream but not included in a release yet I have not yet looked into the i686 and s390x build failures, so no need to review changes yet. --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09063918-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2090835 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8895289 to 9063958
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9063958 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09063958-rauc/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.
An ExcludeArch has been added to the spec file for architectures that is expected to fail like i686 and s390x as they lack grub2 packaging (e.g. grub2-tools-minimal). An upstream link to the XML license issue has also been added to the spec file. --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09067120-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2090936 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9063958 to 9067127
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9067127 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067127-rauc/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.
Fix RPM lint warning about missing versions in changelog. --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09070702-rauc/rauc-1.14-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2091066 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9067127 to 9070721
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9070721 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09070721-rauc/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.
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: [ ]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "FSF All Permissive License". 411 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/rauc/2356980- rauc/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 79631 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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: [ ]: 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. [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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rauc-1.14-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm rauc-1.14-1.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/tmpo8llw1xx')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rauc-debuginfo-1.14-1.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/tmpu1vqhul9')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 2 rauc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/rauc/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rauc/rauc/releases/download/v1.14/rauc-1.14.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c Requires -------- rauc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1()(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.26)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.28)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.31)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- rauc: rauc rauc(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2356980 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, fonts, R, Python, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) To ensure directories are owned, need to use Requires: rather than BuildRequires: as this pulls in the package when installed, not just when building. Automatic dependency resolution only works for linked shared libraries. b) Can the documentation be built? An example build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=133141555 This generates docbook files that can be opened by yelp or khelpcenter rather than html which bundles font and javascript files. Perhaps it could be added as an option to meson in addition to the html build. Documentation is not required though, but is nice to have. Changes to do this: 1) add the following BuildRequires: # Documentation requirements BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: texinfo BuildRequires: python3dist(docutils) BuildRequires: python3dist(sphinx) BuildRequires: python3-sphinx_rtd_theme 2) in the build section add: pushd docs sphinx-build . texinfo -b texinfo pushd texinfo makeinfo --docbook rauc.texi popd popd 3) in the install section add: mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/Rauc install -m644 docs/texinfo/rauc.xml %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/Rauc cp -p -r docs/texinfo/rauc-figures %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/Rauc 4) in the files section add: %dir %{_datadir}/help/en %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/Rauc or make a separate documentation subapackage. c) Please update once: https://github.com/rauc/rauc/issues/1713 is resolved.
Update on review comments. a) Fix dependency on dbus-common and added an offset to %autorelease so it's easier to test new versions. b) Documentation is now built and included. I did not do a separate package but size is 2,1M of /usr/share/help/en/rauc/ Running yelp on Fedora 42 Workstation was able to render text output but not svg images (just a small empty box). c) Upstream status updated in spec file with maintainer PR which resolves issue. --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09098445-rauc/rauc-1.14-7.fc42.src.rpm
2,1MB is bigger then 1,0MB so I will look into doing a -doc.
Created attachment 2092110 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9070721 to 9100136
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9100136 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09100136-rauc/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.
Yelp currently does not display svg files: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps(2f)Yelp(2f)Features.html https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/yelp/-/issues/92 I can add a script to convert to png while work on getting this fixed.
Hi Benson, Sounds great if you can add a script that convert the svg to png images. Do you want to add a patch on this issue or how do we handle it?
Documentation has been split into rauc-doc noarch package. --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09150695-rauc/rauc-1.14-8.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2093566 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9100136 to 9150707
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9150707 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09150707-rauc/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.
Added Recommends on rauc-doc so now it works as I wanted it :) Now the large (>1MB) documentation has been split into separate package in case somebody want to use rauc in a pipeline container. ``` Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: rauc x86_64 1.14-9.fc42 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:bax:rauc 579.5 KiB Installing weak dependencies: rauc-doc noarch 1.14-9.fc42 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:bax:rauc 2.0 MiB ``` --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09150718-rauc/rauc-1.14-9.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2093568 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9150707 to 9150724
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9150724 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09150724-rauc/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.
Mark %{_mandir} with %doc and use same indentation. --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09160397-rauc/rauc-1.14-10.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2093907 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9150724 to 9160402
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9160402 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356980-rauc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09160402-rauc/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.
Comments: a) man page should not be marked as doc, just use %{_mandir}/man1/rauc.1.* b) There are a number of tools to convert from svg to png, see for example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9853325/how-to-convert-a-svg-to-a-png-with-imagemagick#14174624 inkscape, lunasvg and thorvg provide such tools. One could add a build requires on one of these. The example below is for thorvg, in the build section, modify pushd docs sphinx-build . texinfo -b texinfo to pushd docs pushd images tvg_svg2png . popd sed -i "s/\.svg/\.png/g" *.rst tvg_svg2png RAUC_Logo_outline.svg sed -i "s/html_logo = 'RAUC_Logo_outline.svg'/html_logo = 'RAUC_Logo_outline.png'/g" conf.py sphinx-build . texinfo -b texinfo You could also create a patch instead of using sed. b) For me to sponsor you, please do mock reviews of three packages that are currently open for import into Fedora and link to them here.
Thanks for review comments and sponsor consideration. a) Spec has been updated to resolve review comments. I have disabled EPEL builds in COPR as adding thorvg to build requires breaks build as it's not packaged in EPEL repositories. b) Mock reviews: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314290#c3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2345887#c5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2363808#c12 --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09268789-rauc/rauc-1.14-11.fc42.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build] --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09268789-rauc/rauc-1.14-11.fc42.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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. [!]: 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 v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "FSF All Permissive License". 412 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/rauc/2356980-rauc/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/help/en(python- slixmpp-doc, thorvg-doc, libstrophe-doc, python3-xeddsa, python3-tablib, python3-androguard, python3-doubleratchet, python- twomemo-docs, novelwriter-doc, profanity-doc, python3-cobalt, python3-colorspacious) [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. [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 79631 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rauc-1.14-11.fc43.x86_64.rpm rauc-doc-1.14-11.fc43.noarch.rpm rauc-1.14-11.fc43.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdzqfci5w')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rauc-debuginfo-1.14-11.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9_mmyg3z')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rauc/rauc/releases/download/v1.14/rauc-1.14.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c Requires -------- rauc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dbus-common libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1()(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.26)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.28)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.31)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rauc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rauc: rauc rauc(x86-64) rauc-doc: rauc-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2356980 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134840100 b) doc package should also have the license file COPYING c) Please add %license LICENSES/CC0-1.0.txt this seems only to apply to de.pengutronix.rauc.Installer.xml so only needed for the main package, not the doc package d) The README indicates LGPL-2.1-or-later not LGPL-2.1-only e) It is no longer necessary to have a license breakdown in the spec file, but likely helpful when maintaining the package. f) Your reviews are ok, though protobuf3 was mostly done. Can you do one more?
a) +1 b) Done c) Done, had to add LICENSES/CC0-1.0.txt in patch as it is only on master branch and not in a released version. d) Done, my mistake :) f) Another review and a follow up review comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310612#c3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314290#c6 --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/baxeno/fedora-copr-spec/refs/heads/main/rauc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09295647-rauc/rauc-1.14-12.fc42.src.rpm
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 Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "FSF All Permissive License". 412 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/rauc/2356980-rauc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/help/en(python3-cobalt, thorvg-doc, novelwriter-doc, profanity-doc, libstrophe-doc, python3-colorspacious, python3-tablib, python-twomemo-docs, python3-doubleratchet, python3-androguard, python-slixmpp-doc, python3-xeddsa) [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. [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 79631 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [ ]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rauc-1.14-12.fc43.x86_64.rpm rauc-doc-1.14-12.fc43.noarch.rpm rauc-1.14-12.fc43.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpj6gap9ek')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rauc.spec:167: W: macro-in-%changelog %license rauc.spec:168: W: macro-in-%changelog %license 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rauc-debuginfo-1.14-12.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn5en30hv')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rauc/rauc/releases/download/v1.14/rauc-1.14.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f48c85573d82bf9378e907f6eba0cbe4f2021839a1e9fe3f8431f61dd54ef42c Requires -------- rauc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dbus-common libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1()(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.26)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.28)(64bit) libfdisk.so.1(FDISK_2.31)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rauc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rauc: rauc rauc(x86-64) rauc-doc: rauc-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2356980 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Haskell, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Approved
Have sponsored you, so you can import the package. It would be great if you could complete the reviews for which packagers are responding to your comments.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rauc
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bax/rauc/fedora-42-x86_64/09268789-rauc/rauc-1.14-11.fc42.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found 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.
FEDORA-2025-e4d29547de (rauc-1.14-13.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e4d29547de
FEDORA-2025-e4d29547de 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-e4d29547de \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e4d29547de See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-e4d29547de (rauc-1.14-13.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.