https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440262
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #21 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Thanks for the update! This is getting really close. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The License tag for the (sub)package with a compiled binary – in this case, for the base package – needs to include the licenses of Rust crate libraries that are statically linked into the executable. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_license_tags, and also the template https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_non_crate_rust_project. When you do a build of the package, observe the output from %{cargo_license_summary}. For this package, that looks like: ### BEGIN LICENSE SUMMARY ### # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT ### END LICENSE SUMMARY ### Paste in the raw license list as a comment above License, and use it to construct an SPDX expression. You can reorder terms, and you can deduplicate equivalent terms. For example, (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) is equivalent to (MIT OR Apache-2.0). Fabio Valentini (FAS: decathorpe) has a convention of (1) source license of the package itself, then (2) single-term licenses in alphabetical order, then (3) sub-expressions in alphabetical order, but without any reordering within the parentheses – all with duplicates removed, e.g. (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) can just be either (MIT OR Apache-2.0) or (Apache-2.0 OR MIT). This isn’t the only reasonable approach, and even just listing terms without deduplication would be acceptable. The result could look something like this: # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT License: %{shrink: Apache-2.0 AND MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Unlicense OR MIT) } As you maintain the package, it’s good to periodically check if the output of %{cargo_license_summary} has changed, especially on major updates. It can also sometimes change due to updates in your dependencies, even if your package hasn’t changed. Some people like to put the source license of the package itself in a SourceLicense field, like: SourceLicense: Apache-2.0 but this is absolutely not required. ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - Consider using the description text for the RPM package description, as I think it’s a bit more, well, descriptive. Since there are no subpackages re-using the same description text, there’s no longer any need to wrap it up in an RPM macro. Consider something like this: %description Tool to configure cached EIF files for the krun-awsnitro runtime for AWS Nitro Enclaves. - There’s no longer any need to explicitly number Sources unless it makes easier for you to refer to multiple sources by number. Instead of Source0: […] you may just write: Source: […] - I think that the source URL %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz could be better written as %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Then the archive name would match the extraction directory name. - The Summary usually starts with a capital letter, and rpmlint does warn about this: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool I don’t think there’s any formal guideline about this, and no change is required. However, would something like this make sense? Summary: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro ===== MUST items ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/20260301/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif- ctl/licensecheck.txt Need to account for licenses of statically linked Rust libraries; see Issues. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 113 bytes in 1 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). [?]: Package functions as described. No usable tests are included, and I am not sure how to test this interactively. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=142906482 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. No usable tests are included, but everything is set up to compile and run any tests that might appear in the future. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmp9w9513u3')] checks: 32, packages: 2 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.src: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.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-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/tmp02sa0ch1')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/virtee/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/archive/refs/tags/v0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 Requires -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/20260301/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-03-01 09:23:50.997780464 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/20260301/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm-unpacked/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-02-28 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl Version: 0.1.0 @@ -40,3 +50,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Feb 28 2026 Tyler Fanelli <[email protected]> - 0.1.0-1 +- initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440262 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2440262 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202440262%23c21 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
