Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openscad-bosl2.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openscad-bosl2-0-0.20250415git04ad7d8.20250415git04ad7d8.fc41.src.rpm Description: A library for OpenSCAD, filled with useful tools, shapes, masks, math and manipulators, designed to make OpenSCAD easier to use. BOSL2 is beta code. The code is still being reorganized. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131564208
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8906884 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2359814-openscad-bosl2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08906884-openscad-bosl2/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 ===== 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", "BSD 2-Clause License". 135 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/openscad- bosl2/2359814-openscad-bosl2/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 213453 bytes in 21 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openscad-bosl2-0-0.20250415git04ad7d8.20250415git04ad7d8.fc43.noarch.rpm openscad-bosl2-0-0.20250415git04ad7d8.20250415git04ad7d8.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/tmp5ahnawi8')] checks: 32, packages: 2 openscad-bosl2.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/openscad-bosl2/tutorials/Beziers_for_Beginners.md 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 1 openscad-bosl2.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/openscad-bosl2/tutorials/Beziers_for_Beginners.md 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2/archive/04ad7d8efcca3e5942050b617728da7f0d9827ba/BOSL2-04ad7d8efcca3e5942050b617728da7f0d9827ba.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1dd17559adf84e4a693a44f111af302503cf5b586423ae53c7b6f0cadc0bacf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1dd17559adf84e4a693a44f111af302503cf5b586423ae53c7b6f0cadc0bacf Requires -------- openscad-bosl2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openscad Provides -------- openscad-bosl2: openscad-bosl2 Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2359814 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, Java, C/C++, R, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider adding: %global commitdate 20250415 Then change Release: 0.20250415git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} to Release: 0^%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit} b) Permissions on the file tutorials/Beziers_for_Beginners.md are incorrect c) Please ensure the name of the built RPM is correct, error is likely due to contents of Release field.
a) Good idea with adding the date to a macro. b) Have been fixed upstream now c) After a bit of debugging, it seems like the forge macroes already define shortcommit and also popolates the Release.
$ head openscad-bosl2.spec %global forgeurl https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2 %global commit 8658a39f8a9c9da12f8135dd64c912572b321a46 %global commitdate 20250417 %forgemeta Name: openscad-bosl2 Version: 0 Release: 0%{?dist} Summary: BOSL2 library for OpenSCAD $ rpmspec -P openscad-bosl2.spec --shell RPM version 4.20.1 macro shell > %release 0.20250418git8658a39.fc41 I would prefer "0^" as the release prefix, but then it will be expanded to "0^.", so I think it is best to keep it simple and use the forge macros as is.
I also need to use set the %global date 20250417, or else it will take the date from the timestamp of the tarball, it will not use %commitdate
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openscad-bosl2.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openscad-bosl2-0-0.20250417git8658a39.fc41.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131682516
Created attachment 2085780 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8906884 to 8920262
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8920262 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2359814-openscad-bosl2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08920262-openscad-bosl2/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.
Use of the caret is a MUST for snapshots: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots from the forge macro sources: https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/forge-srpm-macros/tree/main/item/rpm/macros.d/macros.forge At the top of the spec file try using %global forgeurl https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2 %global commit 8658a39f8a9c9da12f8135dd64c912572b321a46 %global date 20250417 %global version0 0 %global forgeversionsuffix 0 %forgemeta Name: openscad-bosl2 Version: %{forgeversion} Release: %{autorelease} Summary: BOSL2 library for OpenSCAD License: BSD-2-Clause URL: %{forgeurl} Source: %{forgesource}
This was discussed on the #fedora-devel matrix channel some days ago. They proposed the almost the same: %global forgeurl https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2 %global commit 8658a39f8a9c9da12f8135dd64c912572b321a46 %global date 20250417 %global version 0 %forgemeta Name: openscad-bosl2 Version: %{forgeversion} Release: %{autorelease} Summary: BOSL2 library for OpenSCAD License: BSD-2-Clause URL: %{forgeurl} Source: %{forgesource} Both produce the same n-v-r: Name : openscad-bosl2 Version : 0^20250417git8658a39 Release : 1.fc41 I think this version-release number is more correct than just using version 0.
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openscad-bosl2.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openscad-bosl2-0%5e20250422git2a412be-1.fc41.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131861260
Created attachment 2086383 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8920262 to 8951933
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8951933 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2359814-openscad-bosl2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08951933-openscad-bosl2/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: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== 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", "BSD 2-Clause License". 135 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/openscad-bosl2/2359814-openscad- bosl2/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 213453 bytes in 21 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: 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 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. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openscad-bosl2-0^20250422git2a412be-1.fc43.noarch.rpm openscad-bosl2-0^20250422git2a412be-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/tmphok8snq7')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BelfrySCAD/BOSL2/archive/2a412be227c158a6c8014b7d5f65eaae534c06bc/BOSL2-2a412be227c158a6c8014b7d5f65eaae534c06bc.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 42eb15f04e2d1068e177cd8247eeb3fccd947c7f65fd04cf53a18f340aeda942 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 42eb15f04e2d1068e177cd8247eeb3fccd947c7f65fd04cf53a18f340aeda942 Requires -------- openscad-bosl2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openscad Provides -------- openscad-bosl2: openscad-bosl2 Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2359814 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Python, R, SugarActivity, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Approved. b) Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357156 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358869 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358245 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thanks for the review. (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #15) > Issues: > ======= > - Dist tag is present. Can you explain me this issue? Does it mean %{dist}? Is this a bug in fedora-review? > Comments: > a) Approved. > b) Review of one of: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357156 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358869 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358245 > would be appreciated if time allows. Will do one of them, but will be a bit busy the next week.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openscad-bosl2