https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- fedora-review output Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "ISC License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/uacme/review- uacme/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/uacme [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/uacme [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 102400 bytes in 7 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ndilieto/uacme/archive/refs/tags/upstream/1.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36027a587256cbaa86650cec2a5b3eb000480e1150bd83941565661b392625ac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36027a587256cbaa86650cec2a5b3eb000480e1150bd83941565661b392625ac Requires -------- uacme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh curl gnutls libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libev.so.4()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_6_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) uacme-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): uacme-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- uacme: uacme uacme(x86-64) uacme-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) uacme-debuginfo uacme-debuginfo(x86-64) uacme-debugsource: uacme-debugsource uacme-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n uacme Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Java, Perl, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH [ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #4 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Output of fedora-review Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "ISC License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/uacme/2091389-uacme/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/uacme [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/uacme [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: Couldn't connect to Pagure, check manually [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 102400 bytes in 7 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]: 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== 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: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ndilieto/uacme/archive/refs/tags/upstream/1.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36027a587256cbaa86650cec2a5b3eb000480e1150bd83941565661b392625ac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36027a587256cbaa86650cec2a5b3eb000480e1150bd83941565661b392625ac Requires -------- uacme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh curl gnutls libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libev.so.4()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_6_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) uacme-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): uacme-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- uacme: uacme uacme(x86-64) uacme-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) uacme-debuginfo uacme-debuginfo(x86-64) uacme-debugsource: uacme-debugsource uacme-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2091389 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Java, R, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC| |gotmax(a)e.email Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |jwakely(a)redhat.com CC| |jwakely(a)redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) The output of the current %check is: + which uacme --help Usage: which [options] [--] COMMAND [...] Write the full path of COMMAND(s) to standard output. --version, -[vV] Print version and exit successfully. --help, Print this help and exit successfully. --skip-dot Skip directories in PATH that start with a dot. --skip-tilde Skip directories in PATH that start with a tilde. --show-dot Don't expand a dot to current directory in output. --show-tilde Output a tilde for HOME directory for non-root. --tty-only Stop processing options on the right if not on tty. --all, -a Print all matches in PATH, not just the first --read-alias, -i Read list of aliases from stdin. --skip-alias Ignore option --read-alias; don't read stdin. --read-functions Read shell functions from stdin. --skip-functions Ignore option --read-functions; don't read stdin. Recommended use is to write the output of (alias; declare -f) to standard input, so that which can show aliases and shell functions. See which(1) for examples. If the options --read-alias and/or --read-functions are specified then the output can be a full alias or function definition, optionally followed by the full path of each command used inside of those. Report bugs to <which-bugs(a)gnu.org&gt;. GNU which v2.21, Copyright (C) 1999 - 2015 Carlo Wood. GNU which comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; This program is free software; your freedom to use, change and distribute this program is protected by the GPL. + which uacme --version So it's just printing info about /usr/bin/which. It doesn't even check if uacme is in $PATH, and in fact it isn't, because the RPM hasn't been installed. If you want to check the uacme program can actually be run, this would work: # No tests defined, do a sanity check. # uacme --help gives a return code of 2, but pipeline exits with grep's status. # https://github.com/ndilieto/uacme/issues/50 %check ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_bindir}/%{name} --version 2>&1 | grep 'uacme: version %version' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #10 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Thanks for the review. $ diff -r source/uacme-1.7.3/ upstream/uacme-upstream-1.7.3/ Only in upstream/uacme-upstream-1.7.3/: config.h.in Only in upstream/uacme-upstream-1.7.3/: configure Only in source/uacme-1.7.3/docs: index.html Only in source/uacme-1.7.3/: .gitignore Only in upstream/uacme-upstream-1.7.3/: Makefile.in Only in upstream/uacme-upstream-1.7.3/: .tarball-version upstream has a generated configure file. Probably either one can be used. The exit code of 2 causes the build to fail, even if the output is piped elsewhere. Trying ignoring the exit code, capturing the value and then checking if it is the expected value. New builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/uacme/build/4884680/ spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/uacme/fedora-ra... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/uacme/fedora-ra... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)redhat.com&gt; --- If the shell did 'set -o pipefail' before the pipeline, then it would exit with status 2. But that isn't the case when I build it in mock. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Did you try it without the (... || true) ? Re the comment for %check, it's not the subshell that ignores the exit status 2 it's the || true part. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Yes, but I still maintain it's not actually necessary to do that. 'false | true' exits with status 0, even though 'false' exits with status 1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|jwakely(a)redhat.com |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Flags| |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jwakely(a)redhat.co | |m) --- Comment #18 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Thanks for the positive review. Is there a reason you unassigned yourself? Cannot create a repository: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47921 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 --- Comment #20 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Thanks. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47991 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389