https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

Darryl T. Agostinelli dagostinelli@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|unspecified |low CC| |dagostinelli@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Package Review ==============

- The license is GPLv3+ (either version 3, or (at your option) any later version.) - Descriptions (%description static) should end with a period and %description is too long (see rpmlint ouput) - COPYING is in %doc and %license, should only be in %license - "Source0:" could be replaced with %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - NEWS could be part of the package, AUTHORS.libfswatch, NEWS.libfswatch andvREADME.libfswatch.md of the -devel package - The package should own %{_includedir}/lib%{name}/*

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.3 or later)". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1827880-fswatch/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/libfswatch [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/libfswatch [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 61440 bytes in 4 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: fswatch-static. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fswatch- static [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. [-]: 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. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: fswatch-1.14.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm fswatch-devel-1.14.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm fswatch-static-1.14.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm fswatch-debuginfo-1.14.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm fswatch-debugsource-1.14.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm fswatch-1.14.0-1.fc33.src.rpm fswatch.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C fswatch is a file change monitor that receives notifications when the contents of the specified files or directories are modified. fswatch-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The fswatch-devel package contains libraries and headers for developing applications that use libfswatch. fswatch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation fswatch-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfswatch -> wristwatch fswatch-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation fswatch.src: E: description-line-too-long C fswatch is a file change monitor that receives notifications when the contents of the specified files or directories are modified. 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fswatch-debuginfo-1.14.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fswatch-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfswatch -> wristwatch fswatch-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fswatch-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation fswatch.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C fswatch is a file change monitor that receives notifications when the contents of the specified files or directories are modified. fswatch.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fswatch-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fswatch-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fswatch-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The fswatch-devel package contains libraries and headers for developing applications that use libfswatch. fswatch-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fswatch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emcrisostomo/fswatch/archive/1.14.0/1.14.0.tar.gz#/fswatc... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c4f5ef92e79dda7e50c1ded42784791ef536c99684f3d677f6621fe73ee857d2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c4f5ef92e79dda7e50c1ded42784791ef536c99684f3d677f6621fe73ee857d2

Requires -------- fswatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfswatch.so.11()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

fswatch-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fswatch(x86-64) libfswatch.so.11()(64bit)

fswatch-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fswatch-devel(x86-64)

fswatch-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fswatch-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- fswatch: fswatch fswatch(x86-64) libfswatch.so.11()(64bit)

fswatch-devel: fswatch-devel fswatch-devel(x86-64)

fswatch-static: fswatch-static fswatch-static(x86-64)

fswatch-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fswatch-debuginfo fswatch-debuginfo(x86-64)

fswatch-debugsource: fswatch-debugsource fswatch-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1827880 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Haskell, fonts, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- This would be 1.14.0-2 aka with "Release: 2%{?dist}". There was a change and it requires a new release with a changelog entry.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

--- Comment #5 from Darryl T. Agostinelli dagostinelli@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dagostinelli/fswatch-packaging/master/fswa... SRPM URL: https://github.com/dagostinelli/fswatch-packaging/raw/master/fswatch-1.14.0-...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

--- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- (In reply to Darryl T. Agostinelli from comment #4)

During package review? I know we do this once it's checked into https://src.fedoraproject.org/

I made the change as requested.

How should the reviewer be able to keep track of the changes otherwise?

- License tag is still wrong - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is obsolete - The man page location should be keep. Changing this should be done by upstream and not during the package installation.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Issues were addressed, packaged APPROVED.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

--- Comment #11 from Darryl T. Agostinelli dagostinelli@gmail.com --- repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/25250

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880

Darryl T. Agostinelli dagostinelli@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2020-06-05 03:31:33