Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: A UEFI bootloader similar to android boot. Fedora Account System Username: javierm
I'll review.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9642263 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2401019-ukiboot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09642263-ukiboot/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.
Some drive-by comments of the spec: > Source: ukiboot-%{version}.tar.xz Where does it come from? There's no URL and Source lacks a SourceURL. > %global gnu_efi_builddep gnu-efi-devel This macro makes no sense and should be dropped. > {?gnu_efi_options} What is supposed to define this macro? > %{efi_esp_dir}/* Why are we directly installing into /boot/efi? I thought we are trying to avoid that nowadays... Also, even if we are, since this isn't a package-specific namespace, this glob is too greedy.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > Some drive-by comments of the spec: > > > Source: ukiboot-%{version}.tar.xz > > Where does it come from? There's no URL and Source lacks a SourceURL. > > > %global gnu_efi_builddep gnu-efi-devel > > This macro makes no sense and should be dropped. > > > {?gnu_efi_options} > > What is supposed to define this macro? Agree with all of the above. > > %{efi_esp_dir}/* > > Why are we directly installing into /boot/efi? I thought we are trying to > avoid that nowadays... Looking at the package it's done to both and the above looks like it's due to bootupd. I don't think this is a blocker as packages, and associated standards, evolve and it's not set in stone. > Also, even if we are, since this isn't a package-specific namespace, this > glob is too greedy. Agree on that too. I am in the process of completing a full review.
A few updates needed Fixes needed: - The /boot/EFI directory structure is provides by efi-filesystem so there should be appropriate Requires: - Needs BR: efi-srpm-macros for efi_esp macros - Needs a URL to the project and proper Source URL - Typically autorelease/autochangelog is used these days, but to preserve the existing changelog migrate post import - drop pointless gnu_efi_builddep macro, move actual dep to the BR line - File globs are too wide - Include upstream README.md - Given this is UEFI only should it be explicit in arches? - It looks like the upstream project needs to update the COPYING.LING to the latest upstream text - The gnu_efi_options either needs to be dropped, or the dep that provides it needs to be added, suspect it may provide some efi build vars? 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ukiboot/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /boot/efi/EFI, /boot/efi/EFI/fedora, /boot/efi [!]: %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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in ukiboot [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: 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. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 [!]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ukiboot-0.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ukiboot-0.2.1-1.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/tmpf41o_h4q')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ukiboot.src: W: no-url-tag ukiboot.x86_64: W: no-url-tag ukiboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ukibootctl ukiboot.x86_64: W: no-documentation ukiboot.spec: W: no-%check-section ukiboot.spec:32: W: macro-in-comment %{efi_esp_dir} ukiboot.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ukiboot-0.2.1.tar.xz ukiboot.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ukiboot/COPYING.LIB ukiboot.x86_64: W: empty-%postun 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ukiboot-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc44.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/tmp49atnrxm')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ukiboot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ukiboot-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ukiboot". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- ukiboot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ukiboot: ukiboot ukiboot(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ukiboot --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, R, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks a lot for your feedback folks. With a lot of help from Peter, the update spec file and srpm are available at: Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2110012 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9642263 to 9698176
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9698176 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2401019-ukiboot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09698176-ukiboot/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.
Actually, there was one remaining issue that I missed. The URL was pointing to a .tar.xz but gitlab doesn't generate tarballs using that compression algorithm. I've now replaced with a .tar.gz. The new files are again at: Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9698207 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2401019-ukiboot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09698207-ukiboot/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.
APPROVED. Looks good to me :)
This needs "ExclusiveArch: %{efi}" since it will fail on ppc64le and s390x.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #12) > This needs "ExclusiveArch: %{efi}" since it will fail on ppc64le and s390x. You are correct. I made that change too. Update versions at the usual place: Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/for-review/ukiboot-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ukiboot