https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989291
Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(pemensik(a)redhat.c
|in.net) |om)
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
- The spec file has mixed tabs and spaces. See rpmlint output:
docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab:
line 13)
docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab:
line 13)
You can fix this with:
sed -r -i 's/\t/ /g' docopt-cpp.spec
- The description contains lines longer than 80 characters. Please wrap to 80
characters or narrower.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_d...
See rpmlint output:
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the
docopt.py module (
https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to
maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11
and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex
support).
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the
docopt.py module (
https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to
maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in
C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with
regex support).
- The Summary in the -devel package should start with a capital letter if
practical. Instead of:
Summary: developer files for a docopt C++11 Port
consider:
Summary: Developer files for a docopt C++11 Port
Similarly, I think a better summary for the base package would be the one
under “About” on the upstream GitHub page:
Summary: C++11 port of docopt
See rpmlint output:
docopt-cpp.src: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized developer files for a
docopt C++11 Port
- The changelog is not correctly formatted. Change:
* Mon Aug 02 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com>
to:
* Mon Aug 02 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> - 0.6.3-1
See rpmlint output:
docopt-cpp.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
- You can and should build and run the tests. Add:
BuildRequires: python3-devel
Change
%cmake
%cmake_build
to
%cmake -DWITH_TESTS=ON
%cmake_build
2to3 -w %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests
%py3_shebang_fix %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests
and add
%check
%{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests
after the %install section.
===== Suggestions (no change required) =====
- This is not required in any current Fedora release:
%undefine __cmake_in_source_build
since out-of-source builds are the default. I suggest removing it *unless*
you plan to support EPEL8 from the same spec file.
Relevant documentation:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_availab...
- This is pointless and can be removed since you are not actually using
%forgemeta and %forgesource:
%global tag0 v%{version}
In fact, since v%{version} is the tag that is “guessed” for packaging a
release from GitHub, it would be pointless even if you were using %forgemeta
and %forgesource.
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_rel...
for relevant documentation.
- Instead of repeating the main description text, you can do something like:
%global common_description %{expand: \
docopt creates beautiful command-line interfaces
Isn't it awesome how getopt (and boost::program_options for you fancy
folk!)
generate help messages based on your code?! These timeless functions have
been
around for decades and have proven we don’t need anything better, right?
Hell no! You know what’s awesome? It’s when the option parser is generated
based on the beautiful help message that you write yourself! This way you
don’t
need to write this stupid repeatable parser-code, and instead can write
only
the help message-the way you want it.}
%description
%{common_description}
[…]
%description devel
%{common_description}
This is a port of the docopt.py module (
https://github.com/docopt/docopt),
and
we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the
original.
This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard
library
(in particular, one with regex support).
Contains developer headers and library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a
code
to be compiled.
(This is a common pattern in Python packaging.)
- I am not sure what either these messages are about. I don’t see any problems,
so perhaps they are spurious:
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on
docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink
/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2
- This message seems to be complaining that the library major version is not in
the package name, which is not something the Fedora guidelines ask for. I
don’t think anything needs to be changed here.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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* Boost Software License
1.0", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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 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]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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/docopt/docopt.cpp/archive/v0.6.3/docopt-cpp-0.6.3.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632
Requires
--------
docopt-cpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
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)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
docopt-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
cmake-filesystem
cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
docopt-cpp(x86-64)
libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)
docopt-cpp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
docopt-cpp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
docopt-cpp:
docopt-cpp
docopt-cpp(x86-64)
libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)
docopt-cpp-devel:
cmake(docopt)
docopt-cpp-devel
docopt-cpp-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(docopt)
docopt-cpp-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
docopt-cpp-debuginfo
docopt-cpp-debuginfo(x86-64)
libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
docopt-cpp-debugsource:
docopt-cpp-debugsource
docopt-cpp-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1989291
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Java,
fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4
docopt-cpp.src: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized developer files for a
docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
docopt-cpp.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line
13)
docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line
13)
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on
docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2
libdocopt.so.0.6.2
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py
module (
https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full
feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and
also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex
support).
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py
module (
https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full
feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11
and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex
support).
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings, 6 badness; has
taken 0.3 s
--
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=1989291