https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471
--- Comment #17 from Michel Alexandre Salim <mic...@michel-slm.name> --- So this mostly looks good to go, with a few exceptions: - the tarball in the SRPM is *huge* compared to the tarball I download directly with `spectool -gf`. Might want to try to see if `spectool -gf golang-github-hub.spec && mv hub*.tar.gz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES && rpmbuild -bs golang-github-hub.spec` generates a correct SRPM? My hunch is that given the package previously existed, somehow you're getting an old tarball checked into the Fedora lookaside cache - directory ownership: for the shell completions and Vim files, you need to either own the directories or split off the files into subpackages that depend on vim, zsh and fish. The former is probably more straightforward - the vendor directory contains Golang modules that are bundled with this package; keeping it this way used to require an FPC exception (and fedora-review still says so). I don't see any filed for the old package: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?search_pattern=hub&status=Closed Ideally, try and see if the package can be built without it? That might require some changes to the build scripts. And... it also bundles Ruby gems in bundle/ :( See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling -- at the very least you'd have to declare which modules get bundled (and at which version) so in case there are security vulnerabilities the package can be flagged as needing to be updated. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ => golang, not applicable ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed => going to guess not applicable [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. => golang, everything is static [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages => Koji build has been done by packager [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 627 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1933471-golang-github- hub/srpm-unpacked/review-golang-github-hub/licensecheck.txt => the issues seem to be the vendored modules [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/zsh, /usr/share/zsh/site-functions, /usr/share/vim, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/ftdetect, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax, /usr/share/fish/completions, /usr/share/fish, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles => two approaches here. Either own the directories, or split off zsh, fish, vim support into subpackages. owning the directories is probably easiest, it's fine if they are owned by multiple packages (removing the last one will make RPM clean up and remove the directory) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => that vendor directory [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. => the binary RPM is not renamed, the source is [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 7 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: hub-2.14.2-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm golang-github-hub-2.14.2-4.fc35.src.rpm golang-github-hub.src:31: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/github/hub/archive/v2.14.2/hub-2.14.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e19e0fdfd1c69c401e1c24dd2d4ecf3fd9044aa4bd3f8d6fd942ed1b2b2ad21a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e19e0fdfd1c69c401e1c24dd2d4ecf3fd9044aa4bd3f8d6fd942ed1b2b2ad21a Requires -------- hub (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) Provides -------- hub: hub hub(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n golang-github-hub -p Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Python, Perl, fonts, R, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
