Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09462451/meow.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09462451/meow-2.1.5-1.src.rpm Description: A simple tool to print ASCII kitties to your terminal Fedora Account System Username: pixelsergey Hi! This is my first Fedora package. I am looking for a sponsor. I am the upstream maintainer of this package, and also maintain this package in the Debian, NixOS, and AUR package repos. Successful Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136410927
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9462459 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390640-meow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09462459-meow/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 ===== Issues ===== - The purpose of the %cargo_license macro is to produce a complete license breakdown that can be included with the binary package. Rather than just allowing it to print to the terminal, %cargo_license use it to write a file %cargo_license > LICENSE.dependencies and add to the %files section: %license LICENSE.dependencies - When installing the binary in the %install section, please pass the -p option to the install command in order to preserve timestamps. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps - While a man page is not required, it is always desired for a CLI/TUI tool. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages meow.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary meow If you like, you could try working with upstream to supply a man page. The https://github.com/oxipng/oxipng project is a pretty good example of how a man page can be automatically generated using clap_mangen, https://crates.io/crates/clap_mangen, via an xtask. You could also generate a man page downstream using help2man, which produces a pretty good result for this particular tool. You can add something like the following to rust2rpm.toml: [requires] build = ["help2man"] [scripts.build] post = [ "help2man --no-info --output=meow.1 --name='%{summary}' target/rpm/meow-cli" ] [scripts.install] post = ["install -t %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 -D -p -m 0644 meow.1"] and then add to the [package] section: extra-files = ["%{_mandir}/man1/meow.1*"] Neither approach is required for approval, but either would be helpful to users. - Since this will be a leaf package, it’s not a bad idea to disable the i686 architecture. Building it doesn’t really do any harm, but it’s a waste of resources since there is no full i686 version of Fedora, and nobody will ever use the resulting packages. # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} ===== 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", "MIT License". 186 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2390640-meow/licensecheck.txt [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 2233 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. A quick interactive test showed the CLI appears to behave as expected. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136656497 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no usable tests included in the package, but everything appears to be set up correctly to run any tests that might appear in the future. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. The install command is used without the -p option. [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: meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.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/tmprfevxd7c')] checks: 32, packages: 2 meow.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary meow 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: meow-debuginfo-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.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/tmpytib9913')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 2 meow.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary meow 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pixelsergey/meow/archive/v2.1.5/meow-v2.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 Requires -------- meow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- meow: meow meow(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2390640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, Python, PHP, R, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09562480/meow.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09562480/meow-2.1.5-1.src.rpm Description: Print ASCII cats to your terminal Fedora Account System Username: pixelsergey Hey, thanks for the detailed review, this was very helpful! I've implemented all of the suggestions that you put down, including the manpage. Does the build look good now or is there anything else I should fix? Successful Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137202489
Created attachment 2106854 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9462459 to 9562489
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9562489 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390640-meow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09562489-meow/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.
This package is very close to being ready! It looks like I forgot to explain how to handle the License expression in the initial review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The problem you were originally having with %cargo_license > LICENSE.dependencies was that ">" and "LICENSE.dependencies" were being interpreted as arguments for the %cargo_license macro by the RPM spec file processor. These arguments were ignored (because %cargo_license does not take arguments, and unexpected arguments to an RPM macro do not produce an error), so your detailed license breakdown was written to stdout and not redirected to LICENSE.dependencies. You fixed this with {%cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies which worked, but in an unexpected way. The second } keeps the macro processor from treating the rest of the line as RPM macro arguments, then %cargo_license is expanded inside the curly braces, which remain in the expansion and function as a non-subshell command grouping for the shell, https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Command-Grouping.html. This ends up acheiving the intended effect, but it’s not quite obvious to the reader, and it’s a bit brittle: without whitespace around the %cargo_license macro, it could end up breaking if the expansion of %cargo_license started to have something that interacted with the curly braces – like if the implementation itself were wrapped in curly braces instead of (). What I think you wanted (and what I would recommend in any case) is to write %{cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies where the curly braces are interpreted by the RPM spec file processor and don’t make it through to the shell. This syntax would allow you to put any spec-file macro aarguments inside the braces, like this (which has the same result since %cargo_license ignores any arguments): %{cargo_license some useless arguments} > LICENSE.dependencies - It looks like I missed commenting on %{cargo_license_summary} and the License tag in the initial review. The purpose of %{cargo_license_summary} is to account for the licenses of the Rust dependencies that are statically linked into the meow binary, and which therefore contribute to the license of the binary RPM. You can do that something like this: # The entire source is MIT. The following output from %%{cargo_license_summary} # reflects the licenses of statically-linked Rust library dependencies. See # LICENSES.dependencies for a full breakdown. # # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 License: %{shrink: MIT AND (Apache-2.0 AND MIT) AND (BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) } When you update the package, you can check the output of %{cargo_license_summary} in the build logs, paste the updated output into the comment, and revise the License expression as needed. Note that the order of the License expression is not important, and there are several conventions. Here I have followed Fabio Valentini’s usual convention of putting the “base” license first, then simple license sub-expressions (of which there are none) in alphabetical order, then compound sub-expressions in alphabetical order. I haven’t reordered terms within sub-expressions, although I personally sometimes do this on packages with huge dependency trees and complicated License tags. Notice also that (A AND B) and (B AND A) are equivalent, and I have used this fact to de-duplicate the expression: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) is equivalent to (MIT OR Apache-2.0). ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - You don’t need to pass "-m 755" to "install", since (for historical reasons, as it was deisgned specifically as a *binary* installer) install defaults to executable permissions. However, there’s no harm in doing so. - You may want to link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval in an explanatory comment above the ExcludeArch, as this makes it clearer that this is the sole reason for omitting x86, but you are by no means required to. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 186 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2390640-meow/licensecheck.txt The MIT license is correct, but licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies need to be accounted for. See Issues. It looks like I forgot to mention this in the initial review. [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 2233 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. [-]: 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. There are no usable tests included in the package, but everything appears to be set up correctly to run any tests that might appear in the future. [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: 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: meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.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/tmpno0mlxdq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 meow.src: W: strange-permission meow.spec 666 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: meow-debuginfo-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.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/tmp3dymizwg')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pixelsergey/meow/archive/v2.1.5/meow-v2.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 Requires -------- meow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- meow: meow meow(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2390640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Python, Haskell, PHP, fonts, R, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Sergey, are you still working on this?
Yes I am, sorry! Currently a little busy but will get back to this soon.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09765517/meow.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09765517/meow-2.1.5-1.src.rpm Hi, sorry for the delayed response! I've implemented all of your suggestions now :) hopefully I understood correctly, especially the part about the multiline License command; let me know that I've done it correctly. I have checked that the output of `%{cargo_license_summary}` does indeed match up with what's in the comment :) Successful Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138743102
Created attachment 2112692 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9562489 to 9765531
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9765531 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390640-meow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09765531-meow/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Almost there! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The License expression contains (Apache-2.0 AND MIT) where it should have (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) - The command name in the man page is meow-cli, but the executable is installed as meow. The easiest way to remedy this is to generate the man page in the %install section instead of the %build section, something like this: %install install -p -D target/rpm/meow-cli %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/meow install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 help2man --no-info --output=%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/meow.1 \ --name='%{summary}' %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/meow This approach is often necessary in Python packages, where exectuable entry points are typically generated during installation. If you prefer generating the man page in %build, try something like this: # Use a symlink to make sure the man page has the correct command name ln -s meow-cli target/rpm/meow help2man --no-info --output=meow.1 --name='%{summary}' target/rpm/meow ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - Consider putting a blank line before %generate_buildrequires because this is a spec-file section, not part of %prep, and having no vertical whitespace between spec-file sections makes the spec file hard to read. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 186 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2390640-meow/licensecheck.txt The License expression contains (Apache-2.0 AND MIT) where it should have (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) [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: 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]: 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 2233 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. A quick interactive test showed the CLI appears to behave as expected. [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. There are no usable tests included in the package, but everything appears to be set up correctly to run any tests that might appear in the future. [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: 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: meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpu893eoqx')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: meow-debuginfo-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2qx16wqz')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pixelsergey/meow/archive/v2.1.5/meow-v2.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 Requires -------- meow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- meow: meow meow(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2390640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Python, C/C++, Perl, PHP, R, Ocaml, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09784399/meow.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pixelsergey/meow/srpm-builds/09784399/meow-2.1.5-1.src.rpm Successful Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138825323 Makes sense! Here's attempt number n+1 :)
Created attachment 2113718 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9765531 to 9784408
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9784408 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390640-meow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09784408-meow/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.
Looking at the spec-file diff from the previous submission, I can confirm that all three suggestions from the previous review were correctly implemented. ==== --- ../../srpm-unpacked/meow.spec 2025-11-04 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 +++ srpm-unpacked/meow.spec 2025-11-10 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ # MIT OR Apache-2.0 License: %{shrink: MIT AND - (Apache-2.0 AND MIT) AND + (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) } URL: https://github.com/pixelsergey/meow @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ %prep %autosetup %cargo_prep + %generate_buildrequires %cargo_generate_buildrequires @@ -39,11 +40,12 @@ %cargo_build %{cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies %{cargo_license_summary} -help2man --no-info --output=meow.1 --name='%{summary}' target/rpm/meow-cli %install install -p -D target/rpm/meow-cli %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/meow -install -t %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 -D -p -m 0644 meow.1 +install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 +help2man --no-info --output=%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/meow.1 \ + --name='%{summary}' %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/meow %check %cargo_test ==== The man page still has "meow-cli" in it in several places, even though the SYNOPSIS section correctly has "meow". It turns out that this is because "meow --version" prints "meow-cli 2.1.5", and help2man is picking up the command name from there. Local testing suggests that you can fix this and get "MEOW(1)" and "meow" everywhere by overriding the version string, i.e., changing the help2man invocation to: help2man --no-info --name='%{summary}' --version-string='%{version}' \ --output=%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/meow.1 \ %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/meow While I strongly suggest fixing this on import, the package is now APPROVED. ==== Some recommended post-import tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer This is not mandatory for "application" packages like this one, where the source package name is not of the form rust-*, but it makes it easier for Rust SIG members to help out with package maintenance. It’s your choice. - track package in koschei for all built branches ==== It seems like you’re looking for a sponsor into the packager group in Fedora (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/). I would be willing to sponsor you based on our interactions in this review ticket, but you need to follow the other steps in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/ first. Particularly, please introduce yourself on the devel mailing list and sign the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement at https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/pixelsergey/settings/agreements/.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/meow
FEDORA-2025-18c44424b8 (meow-2.1.5-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-18c44424b8
FEDORA-2025-18c44424b8 (meow-2.1.5-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.