Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/cow.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/cow-1-0.10256486.d957099.fc44.src.rpm Description: CoW (Compositor on Wayland) is a stacking window manager for Wayland. It aims to provide the look-and-feel of FVWM and MWM. Fedora Account System Username: mcermak
COPR builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/
Taking this review.
Initial spec review: > Version: 1 > Release: 0.11698132.f7f9d2d%{?dist} This should follow the snapshot-in-version format. Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_complex_versioning It should be something like: "Version: 0.1~git11698132.f7f9d2d" with "Release: 1%{?dist}". Though, ideally the date and hash are macroized so they can be reused in later parts. > Obsoletes: testcow This package doesn't exist in Fedora, so this line must be removed. > Source0: cow-1.0.tar.gz This should use a proper SourceURL. e.g. "%{url}/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz" Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_commit_revision > BuildRequires: cairo > BuildRequires: libbsd > BuildRequires: libwayland-client > BuildRequires: libxkbcommon > BuildRequires: pango None of these need to be specified, since they are pulled in as dependencies already. Some of these are unused: > BuildRequires: libevdev-devel > BuildRequires: libinput-devel > BuildRequires: wlroots-devel > BuildRequires: zig These are not requested in an ideal way in the spec: > BuildRequires: libbsd-devel > BuildRequires: libxkbcommon-devel > BuildRequires: pango-devel > BuildRequires: scdoc > BuildRequires: wayland-devel > BuildRequires: wayland-protocols-devel It seems Meson requests these all via pkgconfig, so it should use pkgconfig() names here: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(cairo) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libbsd) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xkbcommon) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(pangocairo) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(scdoc) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wayland-client) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wayland-protocols) >= 1.41 Also, there seem to be some missing dependencies: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libevent) BuildRequires: bison >= 3.0 BuildRequires: flex >= 2.6 > %prep > %setup -n cow-1.0 > %patch -P0 -p1 This can be simplified to "%autosetup -C -p1" > %build > export CFLAGS="%{optflags} -Wno-error=format-security" > %meson -Detcprefix=/ > %meson_build This should be split into two phases: %conf export CFLAGS="%{build_cflags} -Wno-error=format-security" %meson -Detcprefix=/ %build %meson_build > %{_sysconfdir}/cow/cow.conf This should be declared properly: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/cow %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/cow/cow.conf > %{_mandir}/man1/cow.1.gz > %{_mandir}/man1/cowbar.1.gz > %{_mandir}/man1/cowident.1.gz > %{_mandir}/man1/cowpager.1.gz > %{_mandir}/man1/moocow.1.gz > %{_mandir}/man1/cowrearrange.1.gz The ".gz" extension should be unspecified as "*". Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
Created attachment 2145779 [details] updated specfile Hi Neal, thanks for your review! I'm attaching updated specfile hopefully addressing it. Please review the updated specfile and let me know your thoughts.
Please upload updated spec + srpm to your fedorapeople space.
More spec review: > Source0: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow/archive/cow-%{vcshash}.tar.gz Please actually use the upstream source tarball generated by Codeberg. Your own tarballs are not necessary. It would look like this: "%{url}/archive/%{vcshash}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{vcshash}.tar.gz" > %autosetup -C -n cow-1.0 -p1 The "-n cow-1.0" is useless and should be dropped. "-C" supersedes it. > BuildRequires: libevent-devel Please use "pkgconfig(libevent)" since that's how meson.build pulls it in. > BuildRequires: pango-devel Please use "pkgconfig(pangocairo)" since that's how meson.build pulls it in. You also need to add a BR for "pkgconfig(cairo)" too. > Requires: libevent This is not needed, as RPM generates the required dependency automatically.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > More spec review: > > > Source0: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow/archive/cow-%{vcshash}.tar.gz > > Please actually use the upstream source tarball generated by Codeberg. Your > own tarballs are not necessary. Upstream didn't release a tarball yet. So my own tarball is the only option for now. > It would look like this: > "%{url}/archive/%{vcshash}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{vcshash}.tar.gz" > > > %autosetup -C -n cow-1.0 -p1 > > The "-n cow-1.0" is useless and should be dropped. "-C" supersedes it. > > > BuildRequires: libevent-devel > > Please use "pkgconfig(libevent)" since that's how meson.build pulls it in. > > > BuildRequires: pango-devel > > Please use "pkgconfig(pangocairo)" since that's how meson.build pulls it in. > > You also need to add a BR for "pkgconfig(cairo)" too. > > > Requires: libevent > > This is not needed, as RPM generates the required dependency automatically. Everything else addressed, I believe: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_01/ Also, there's a copr build using this specfile: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/build/10617225/ Please review.
(In reply to Martin Cermak from comment #7) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > More spec review: > > > > > Source0: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow/archive/cow-%{vcshash}.tar.gz > > > > Please actually use the upstream source tarball generated by Codeberg. Your > > own tarballs are not necessary. > > Upstream didn't release a tarball yet. So my own tarball is the only option > for now. > They aren't likely to make tarballs. Most upstreams on forges these days rely on the forge automatically generating tarballs for tags. > > It would look like this: > > "%{url}/archive/%{vcshash}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{vcshash}.tar.gz" > > And this above is basically the snapshot tarball Codeberg generates for you. When a version is tagged, you would get to update it to: "%{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz" (or something like that depending on how the tag is structured).
Upstream kindly provided me with a tag/tarball: https://codeberg.org/thomasadam/cow/releases/tag/0.1 Updated spec and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_02/ Updated COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds Please review.
Neal, any update?
> %global url https://codeberg.org/thomasadam/cow > %global base_version 0.1 > %global vcshash bef2523 > %global vcsdate 20260622 > You don't need %vcshash or %vcsdate when shipping a tag. > Name: cow > Version: %{base_version}~git%{vcsdate}.%{vcshash} Since you're shipping a tag, it's just "0.1". > > [...] > > URL: %{url} "URL:" defines %{url}, so this is pointless. Just put the URL in the "URL:" field. > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{base_version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{vcshash}.tar.gz When you're actually shipping a tag, you can do it more simply: "%{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz".
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_03/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review
> * Mon Jun 22 2026 Martin Cermak <mcermak> - 0.1~git20260622.bef2523-1 the date and version need to be updated.
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_04/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review
> URL: %{url} Please put the URL in the field. You don't need a separate %url macro since the URL field defines the %url macro itself.
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_05/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review
> Requires: seatd > Requires: slurp Neither of these appear to be used or referenced by cow, so they should be dropped.
Thanks Neal. I'm on vacation and my laptop seems to have died. Will update the bug after Jul 16.
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_06/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review
Ping, any update please?
> Source0: %{url}/archive/%{base_version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz %base_version doesn't exist, please replace it with %{version}.
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_07/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ I had to introduce %global upstream_tag because upstream renamed the original tag "0.1" to "0.1-rc". Please review.
> %global upstream_tag 0.1-rc You don't need this. > Version: 0.1 Use "0.1~rc" > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{upstream_tag}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Use "%{version_no_tilde}" instead of %{upstream_tag} and %{version}. > * Sat Jul 25 2026 Martin Cermak <mcermak> - 0.1-1 Use "0.1~rc-1" in the verrel in the changelog entry.
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_08/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review.
Ugh, one more update clearing some garbage from the spec file: Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_09/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review.
Current iteration... Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_09/cow.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_09/cow-0.1~rc-1.fc45.src.rpm
> Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version_no_tilde}.tar.gz This should be "%{url}/archive/%{version_no_tilde}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version_no_tilde}.tar.gz".
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_10/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review.
Current iteration... Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_10/cow.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_10/cow-0.1~rc-1.fc45.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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2489821-cow/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [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. [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: cow-0.1~rc-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm cow-0.1~rc-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-legacy-licenses.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/tmpq39i0l9c')] checks: 32, packages: 2 cow.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cow-start cow.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cow-debuginfo-0.1~rc-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpouh8p4ry')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 cow.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cow-start 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/thomasadam/cow/archive/0.1-rc.tar.gz#/cow-0.1-rc.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 487883b330d16931c8bc26df23a0dea5866f29b81531b5698effd63506869cb9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 487883b330d16931c8bc26df23a0dea5866f29b81531b5698effd63506869cb9 Requires -------- cow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh config(cow) libbsd.so.0()(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libevdev-utils libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-cursor.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon-utils libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) pasystray river rtld(GNU_HASH) waybar Provides -------- cow: config(cow) cow cow(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2489821 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Python, Perl, PHP, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "*No copyright* GNU > General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "Historical > Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License > (legal disclaimer)". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2489821-cow/licensecheck.txt This is because the top level meson.build file has the wrong license identifier. It says GPL-3.0-or-later instead of ISC. See: https://codeberg.org/thomasadam/cow/src/branch/main/meson.build#L4 That needs to be fixed.
Thanks for the review! Are you fine with me fixing this using a (downstream) patch via the specfile?
Fresh specfile and SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_11/ Fresh COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcermak/cow/builds/ Please review.
Ping? Does the package meet the requirements now?
(In reply to Martin Cermak from comment #32) > Thanks for the review! Are you fine with me fixing this using a > (downstream) patch via the specfile? Yes. Just make sure it's submitted upstream and denoted as such in the spec.
Current iteration... Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_11/cow.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mcermak/cow-package-review/iter_11/cow-0.1~rc-1.fc45.src.rpm
At this point, I think things look good. PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thanks!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cow Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`