Spec URL: https://girst.fedorapeople.org/zsync.spec SRPM URL: https://girst.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm Description: a file transfer program using the same algorithm as rsync over HTTP Fedora Account System Username: girst
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8853647 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356982-zsync/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08853647-zsync/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 Issues: ======= - Consider using rpmautospec (%autorelease and %autochangelog) - If not using rpmautospec, you need to update `Release: 1%{?dist}` - (Note that fedora-review-service failed to provide you a review template because of the missing %{?dist} ) - License: is missing "LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain" (librcksum) - %check is silently ignoring the exit of ./check-zsyncmake, why? I removed the "|| exit" and it worked for me. - /usr/share/doc/zsync contains a duplicate of license (COPYING). Consider increasing the specificity of %files to "%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/README"? - I tried to use the package and had some troubles, but maybe I just didn't understand the docs. I did this: $ zsyncmake zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm I then uploaded zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm + zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync to https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/. I then tried this: $ zsync https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync failed on url https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync could not read control file from URL https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Artistic License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "NTP License", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "zlib License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/sam/src/2356982-zsync/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 16959 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 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]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
thank you, appreciating your thorough review! > - Consider using rpmautospec (%autorelease and %autochangelog) I'm not particularly fond of those for my packages. > - If not using rpmautospec, you need to update `Release: 1%{?dist}` > - (Note that fedora-review-service failed to provide you a review template > because of the missing %{?dist} ) argh, thanks. fixed. > - License: is missing "LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain" (librcksum) added. > - %check is silently ignoring the exit of ./check-zsyncmake, why? I removed > the "|| exit" and it worked for me. i didn't intend to include that. gone now. > - /usr/share/doc/zsync contains a duplicate of license (COPYING). Consider > increasing the specificity of %files to "%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/README"? not installing COPYING there now. simply increasing specificity complains about uncopied files. > - I tried to use the package and had some troubles, but maybe I just didn't > understand the docs. I did this: > $ zsyncmake zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm > I then uploaded zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm + zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync to > https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/. I then tried this: > $ zsync https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync > failed on url https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync > could not read control file from URL https://samcday.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.src.rpm.zsync you're using it correctly, but zsync is http-only, it doesn't understand SSL/TLS. I've uploaded a copy to here: http://services.gir.st/pub/zsync-0.6.2-1.fc43.src.rpm.zsync Spec URL: https://girst.fedorapeople.org/zsync.spec SRPM URL: https://girst.fedorapeople.org/zsync-0.6.2-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2083221 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8853647 to 8857607
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8857607 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356982-zsync/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08857607-zsync/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.
(In reply to Tobias from comment #3) > thank you, appreciating your thorough review! > > > - Consider using rpmautospec (%autorelease and %autochangelog) > > I'm not particularly fond of those for my packages. Fair enough :) > you're using it correctly, but zsync is http-only, it doesn't understand > SSL/TLS. I've uploaded a copy to here: > http://services.gir.st/pub/zsync-0.6.2-1.fc43.src.rpm.zsync Ah I see, cool that works, thanks! Package is approved \m/ 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: "Artistic License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "NTP License", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "zlib License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/sam/src/fedora- reviews/2356982-zsync/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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 6294 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zsync
FEDORA-2025-e4ddd6c4f6 (zsync-0.6.2-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e4ddd6c4f6
FEDORA-2025-e4ddd6c4f6 (zsync-0.6.2-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
zsync is unmaintained: https://github.com/cph6/zsync/commits/master/ better use a current one: https://github.com/probonopd/zsync-curl https://github.com/AppImageCommunity/zsync2