Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/mumbricht/OpenABF/-/blob/fedora-v2.0.0/pkg/rpm/openabf.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10216008/openabf-2.0.0-1.src.rpm Description: OpenABF is a single-header C++ library of angle-based flattening algorithms. The template interface is designed for simple out-of-the-box use, and integration with existing geometric processing pipelines is quick and easy. Fedora Account System Username: Mumble07 I am in contact with the project author. This is packaged as a dependency for OpenVSP. I do not currently have sponsorship.
Need link to raw spec file: spec: https://gitlab.com/mumbricht/OpenABF/-/raw/fedora-v2.0.0/pkg/rpm/openabf.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10216008/openabf-2.0.0-1.src.rpm Would add BuildRequires: doxygen and then try to build the documentation and check if it is useful. It is not a must to build and ship documentation though.. Docbook documentation is better than html for packaging as it is much smaller. It can be viewed using Yelp. Would also try to run tests, add BuildRequires: gtest-devel BuildRequires: gmock-devel then add a section %check %ctest The cmake files should not be installed in lib on anything other than i686, modify the CMakeLists.txt file to use GNUInstallDirs: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/module/GNUInstallDirs.html or move the folder to %{_libdir}
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10218153 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10218153-openabf/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/openabf/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
Done. It took a few tries to get it working, but the new build makes doxygen files: Archived SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10222589/openabf.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10222589/openabf-2.0.0-1.src.rpm The build currently points to the development branch of both the spec and the main repo, due to eigen3 updating to 5.0 in fedora 44+. I will communicate with the maintainer to ensure that the spec points to the next tagged release as soon as it comes out.
a) Please use commit format %global commit 894fcb48e5de900229ceb5707a13932916aa203a %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global commitdate 20260312 Name: openabf Version: 2.0.0^%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit} Release: %autorelease Summary: A single-header C++ library of angle-based flattening algorithms License: Apache-2.0 URL: https://gitlab.com/educelab/OpenABF Source: %{url}/-/archive/%{commit}/OpenABF-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz : : %autosetup -n PROJECT-%{commit} see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_commit_revision b) Please put the documentation in a noarch subpackage https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_documentation_subpackages c) Please put the header files in a devel subpackage and only mark the sub package as a noarch package so tests run on all architectures: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
Created attachment 2133366 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10218153 to 10224711
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224711 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224711-openabf/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/openabf/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224755 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224755-openabf/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/openabf/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #7) > Copr build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224755 > (succeeded) > > Review template: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- > review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224755-openabf/fedora-review/ > review.txt > > Found issues: > > - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/openabf/diff.txt > Read more: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > > 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. Done: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10222589/openabf.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10222589/openabf-2.0.0-1.src.rpm Build uses a patch to use system gtest instead of internet gtest. Now points to specific commit instead of HEAD.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10225245 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10225245-openabf/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/openabf/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
Is this moving? Are you waiting on me for anything?
Link to latest package spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10225240/openabf.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10225240/openabf-2.0.0%5E20260312git894fcb4-1.src.rpm
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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/openabf/2446921- openabf/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/OpenABF [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/OpenABF, /usr/share/doc/openabf [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 15456 bytes in 2 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openabf- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: openabf-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm openabf-devel-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.fc45.noarch.rpm openabf-doc-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.fc45.noarch.rpm openabf-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.fc45.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/tmpevwt6hx1')] checks: 32, packages: 4 openabf-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('doxygen', '%description -l en_US doxygen -> oxygen, d oxygen') openabf-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openabf-doc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/openabf/html 644 openabf-devel.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 openabf.x86_64: E: no-binary openabf.spec:70: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package devel %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenABF/ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 14 filtered, 4 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: 3 openabf-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('doxygen', '%description -l en_US doxygen -> oxygen, d oxygen') openabf-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openabf-doc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/openabf/html 644 openabf-devel.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 openabf.x86_64: E: no-binary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/educelab/OpenABF/-/archive/894fcb48e5de900229ceb5707a13932916aa203a/OpenABF-894fcb4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68648e01b575012c71ea231ec324ba06d9613ffff5a9f6078fe91513c43d2839 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68648e01b575012c71ea231ec324ba06d9613ffff5a9f6078fe91513c43d2839 Requires -------- openabf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openabf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) openabf-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openabf: openabf openabf(x86-64) openabf-devel: cmake(OpenABF) cmake(openabf) openabf-devel openabf-static openabf-doc: openabf-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2446921 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Haskell, R, Java, Python, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) The package %files %license LICENSE %doc README.md is not needed. Please remove it. b) To ensure all directories are owned, please change %{_includedir}/OpenABF/OpenABF.hpp %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenABF/ to %dir %{_includedir}/OpenABF %{_includedir}/OpenABF/OpenABF.hpp %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenABF/ also change %{_docdir}/%{name}/html/ to %dir %{_docdir}/%{name} %{_docdir}/%{name}/html/ c) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143569159 d) At the moment the documentation is not being generated. It seems latex toolchain is needed. https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9225/143569225/build.log Add: BuildRequires: /usr/bin/bibtex BuildRequires: /usr/bin/latex to the spec file. Rather than generating HTML documentation, consider generating docbook. Modify https://gitlab.com/educelab/OpenABF/-/blob/develop/docs/CMakeLists.txt to have an entry set(DOXYGEN_GENERATE_DOCBOOK NO) See: https://github.com/educelab/OpenABF/pull/70 e) Upstream repository has migrated: https://github.com/educelab/OpenABF
Fixed, still with HTML docs. I will now try docbook. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10251138/openabf.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10251138/openabf-2.0.0%5E20260312git894fcb4-1.src.rpm
html docs are still empty, giving an error of "Problems running latex". I'm looking into it.
Now uses docbook. Your PR is unnecessary, setting the CMAKE flag is sufficient. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10251234/openabf.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10251234/openabf-2.1.0~rc.1-1.src.rpm
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/OpenABF/srpm-builds/10251138/openabf-2.0.0%5E20260312git894fcb4-1.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
Created attachment 2134552 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10225245 to 10253090
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10253090 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10253090-openabf/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.
What needs to happen for this to move forward?
Permanent link: SRPM : https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/OpenABF/releases/download/v2.1.0-rc.1/openabf-2.1.0.rc.1-1.src.rpm SPEC : https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/OpenABF/raw/develop/pkg/rpm/openabf.spec NOTE: the patch file to use system GTest does not make sense to push to source, as it would break multi-platform compatibility. Making more robust logic to handle multiple build environments is also probably overkill in this case.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10355425 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10355425-openabf/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 ===== 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: [ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License". 135 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/openabf/2446921- openabf/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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 7723 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openabf- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: openabf-devel-2.1.0~rc.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm openabf-doc-2.1.0~rc.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm openabf-2.1.0~rc.1-1.fc45.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/tmpe25lj9so')] checks: 32, packages: 3 openabf-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('doxygen', '%description -l en_US doxygen -> oxygen, d oxygen') openabf-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openabf-devel.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 openabf.spec:74: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package devel %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenABF/ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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 openabf-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('doxygen', '%description -l en_US doxygen -> oxygen, d oxygen') openabf-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openabf-devel.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/educelab/OpenABF/archive/refs/tags/v2.1.0-rc.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1ee4c74b8ea49684213539a28c3336d643797ca5a5a768c28c9219ed1ad1c040 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1ee4c74b8ea49684213539a28c3336d643797ca5a5a768c28c9219ed1ad1c040 Requires -------- openabf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) openabf-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openabf-devel: cmake(OpenABF) cmake(openabf) openabf-devel openabf-static openabf-doc: openabf-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2446921 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Python, fonts, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider adding https://github.com/educelab/OpenABF/pull/74 as a patch to install CMake files in an architecture independent location. b) Consider modifying %{_docdir}/%{name}/docbook/ to %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}/docbook/ c) Please change Source: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version_literal}.tar.gz to Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version_literal}/openabf-v%{version_literal}.tar.gz see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags d) Please also add %license NOTICE to the list of packaged files. e) Logo is under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. which is not allowed for Fedora: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ Consider asking upstream to use CC-BY-ND-4.0 alternatively, please remove the folder docs/images and the file logo.png from the source tarball see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-upstream-uses-prohibited-code e) For me to sponsor you, please do 3 mock package reviews and link to them here.
SRPM : https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/OpenABF/releases/download/2.1.0-rc.1-20260424git3c1b52a/openabf-2.1.0.rc.1.20260424git3c1b52a-1.fc45.src.rpm SPEC : https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/OpenABF/raw/develop/pkg/rpm/openabf.spec Fixed the outstanding issues. Upstream does not want to change their copyright. For the mock package reviews, would you like me to post my findings in those threads, or just here?
Post findings on the appropriate bugzilla tickets, but link to the tickets here. see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#comment_on_reviews
Created attachment 2138552 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10355425 to 10405279
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10405279 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10405279-openabf/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.
The unallowed content needs to be removed before creating the SRPM. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-upstream-uses-prohibited-code An example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-androguard/tree/rawhide
My mistake. Here it is fixed. SRPM: https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/OpenABF/releases/download/2.1.0-rc.1-20260428git21ba301/openabf-2.1.0.rc.1.20260428git21ba301-1.src.rpm SPEC: https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/OpenABF/raw/openabf-fedora/pkg/rpm/tests-use-system-gtest.patch
Created attachment 2138608 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10405279 to 10405990
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10405990 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10405990-openabf/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.
First package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468678
Second package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468635
third package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468634 I found some problems this time!
Reviews seem ok. The spec file at: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446921-openabf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10405990-openabf/openabf.spec from the latest build shows that the logo content is still in the srpm. You need to download the release/commit tarball to your computer. Run a script to remove the content with license that is not allowed, then create a new tarball without the logo. The new tarball can be used to create an SRPM. The script used to download the tarball, remove the content and create a new clean tarball must be part of the package. See: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-androguard/blob/rawhide/f/clean.sh https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-androguard/blob/rawhide/f/python-androguard.spec for an example.
I forked the repo and removed the logos. That struck me as cleaner and more transparent than doing local modifications and remaking the tarball. If you check the SRPM the logo files have been removed. Doing it as described in the docs seems to list sources that are not used (the clean.sh script), and uses sources that cannot be automatically pulled (foo-clean.tar.gz). A forked repo can be kept up to date easily without repeating the exercise of removing the copyright content, as git handles those changes automatically. Is that an acceptable way forward?