Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/maharmstone/btrfs-dump/fedora-43-x86_64/10068728-btrfs-dump/btrfs-dump.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/maharmstone/btrfs-dump/fedora-43-x86_64/10068728-btrfs-dump/btrfs-dump-20260123-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Metadata dumper for btrfs Fedora Account System Username: maharmstone I am the developer for this program, and this is my first package.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10070537 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2433349-btrfs-dump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10070537-btrfs-dump/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ 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.
That'd be because I wrote g++ rather than gcc-c++ - is that an issue or is this a false positive? fedpkg lint didn't pick it up
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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", "MIT License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/btrfsdump/2433349-btrfs- dump/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [ ]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: btrfs-dump-20260123-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm btrfs-dump-20260123-1.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/tmp6nw_2slo')] checks: 32, packages: 2 btrfs-dump.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary btrfs-dump btrfs-dump.x86_64: W: no-documentation btrfs-dump.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: btrfs-dump-debuginfo-20260123-1.fc44.x86_64.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/tmpy6i45euu')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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 btrfs-dump.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary btrfs-dump btrfs-dump.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/maharmstone/btrfs-dump/archive/refs/tags/20260123.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6290d47ad1ecacf59793b38b081faa1ed594e30fe881cff715bb6dd2f4269c38 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6290d47ad1ecacf59793b38b081faa1ed594e30fe881cff715bb6dd2f4269c38 Requires -------- btrfs-dump (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libblkid.so.1()(64bit) libblkid.so.1(BLKID_1.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_12.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_13.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- btrfs-dump: btrfs-dump btrfs-dump(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2433349 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Python, Perl, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Yes, please replace BuildRequires: g++ by BuildRequires: gcc-c++ b) Consider replacing BuildRequires: libblkid-devel by BuildRequires: pkgconfig(blkid) c) The file https://github.com/maharmstone/btrfs-dump/blob/master/src/b64.cpp seems to be vendored and is under a different license. Can the license for this be specified? It seems to be part of FreeBSD https://web.mit.edu/freebsd/head/contrib/wpa/src/utils/base64.c so BSD-2-Clause probably. Thus the license field should be MIT AND BSD-2-Clause ideally the BSD-2-Clause license file would also be added to the repository or the text for this license included in base64.c d) Could a smoke test be run, for example btrfs-dump --help
Consider also changing Source: https://github.com/maharmstone/btrfs-dump/archive/refs/tags/%{version}.tar.gz to Source: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz or using the forge macros see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
Thanks for your help. I've updated it with your suggestions, and bumped it to the latest version: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/maharmstone/btrfs-dump/fedora-43-x86_64/10140383-btrfs-dump/btrfs-dump.spec