Bug 1433749

Small as it may be, but there are still some relevant things in the guidelines:


> Name:          vrms-rpm
>
> %description
> vrms-rpm reports nonfree packages installed on the system.

Explaining in the package description what "vrms" means would be good. Is it based one "Virtual Richard M. Stallman"?


> Release:       2  

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning


> License:       GPLv3

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


> # Archive generated from git repository
> # No modifications made
> Source0:       %{name}-%{version}.zip

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL


> install -m 755 %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/vrms-rpm.sh %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/vrms-rpm
> install -m 644 %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/vrms-rpm.man %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/vrms-rpm.1

Examine the rpmbuild build output and notice that at the start of every main spec file section, such as %prep, %build, %install, %clean, rpmbuild enters the builddir automatically. If it doesn't, adjust the %setup macro in the %prep section appropriately. It is not necessary to specify the full source path like you've done it here.


> %files
> %{_mandir}/man1/vrms-rpm.1.gz

The more flexible notation for manual pages is 

  %{_mandir}/man1/vrms-rpm.1*

to cover any compressor and even disabled compression.

(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1)
> Explaining in the package description what "vrms" means would be good. Is it
> based one "Virtual Richard M. Stallman"?
It is a clone of said software. Would something like 'vrms-rpm ("virtual Richard M. Stallman") reports...' suffice?

As for the release number: This is the spec file I used for the copr build; I had to re-package that one, hence the greater release number. I have now bumped it to 3 after making further changes to the spec file. (Although I've noticed that I've missed the %{dist} tag requirement, thank you for that.)

Regarding the licence: I have added the licence file in the %files section, as instructed on the wiki page.

Regarding the Source0 URL: I added a tag in the git repo and switched to using a generated tarball for the source.
 
Thank you for your notes regarding the builddir and the manpage notation. I have made appropriate changes to the spec file.

Updated links to the spec file and the SRPM:
https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.0-3.spec
https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.0-3.src.rpm

Once again, a link to the koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18528835

I have made a new upstream release.

Updated links to the spec file and the SRPM:
https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-1.spec
https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-1.src.rpm

koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18845206
copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/537305/

You should use install with -p option (in addition to -m) for installing files into their destination location in %install. Otherwise they get package-build-time timestamps.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps

Thank you. Fixed.

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-2.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-2.src.rpm

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19007901
copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/539934/

I'll take this review formally.

I've also seen you do at least one informal review[1], showing that you understand the guidelines, so I'll be happy to sponsor you as well (since no one else has said they'll sponsor you).

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1444518

I ran fedora-review on the package and a minor issue with the dist-tag came up, so I made a new release.

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-3.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.1-3.src.rpm

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19641736
copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/554436/


Thank you for sponsorship, Neal. I'm still fairly new to RPM packaging, so I prefer to be cautious about reviewing (nothing worse than giving out bad advice). Still, I have done another two reviews. [1] [2]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1451298
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1450572

I have made a new upstream release. This one required some more significant changes to the spec file, as localised files and a Makefile were introduced.

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-1.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-1.src.rpm

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19804618
copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/560464/

Ignore the lone failed chroot for copr; the logs say it failed to install bash during the mock-build.

> URL:           https://github.com/%{githubowner}/%{name}/
> Source0:       %{url}archive/%{gittag0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{gittag0}.tar.gz

Please adjust the URL structure to be properly segmented. For example:

URL:           https://github.com/%{githubowner}/%{name}
Source0:       %{url}/archive/%{gittag0}/%{name}-%{gittag0}.tar.gz

> make build PREFIX=/usr %{?_smp_mflags}

Please use %{_prefix} for PREFIX= value. Also, as an alternative, you can simplify this with "%make_build PREFIX=%{_prefix}"

> make install PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr %{?_smp_mflags}

Use %{buildroot}%{_prefix} here. Also, consider supporting DESTDIR so that the standard %make_install macro works.

> %{find_lang} %{name} --with-man 

Please use "%find_lang" instead of "%{find_lang}", as it helps identify it as a parameterized macro.

Adjusted the URL and the %find_lang usage as asked.

I've actually tried using %{prefix}, but that didn't work. Didn't think about trying the underscored version... Fixed. Did not use the %make_build macro, as that results in a "make" call, whereas the project requires "make build" (default target just prints some help text).

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-2.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-2.src.rpm

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19816977
copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/561094/

Package Review
==============

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

Issues:
=======
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: vrms-rpm-1.2-2.spec should be vrms-rpm.spec
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name


===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "CDDL CeCILL-B CC by", "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)",
     "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1433749-vrms-
     rpm-1.2-2/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc27.noarch.rpm
          vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc27.src.rpm
vrms-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Stallman -> Stall man, Stall-man, Stableman
vrms-rpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Stallman -> Stall man, Stall-man, Stableman
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
vrms-rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Stallman -> Stall man, Stall-man, Stableman
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
vrms-rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    bash
    gettext
    grep



Provides
--------
vrms-rpm:
    vrms-rpm



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/suve/vrms-rpm/archive/release-1.2.tar.gz#/vrms-rpm-release-1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9ae6a24cc70366683fee33ce6dfdd4abc5663cf1ddb419cf73924fe129437185
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ae6a24cc70366683fee33ce6dfdd4abc5663cf1ddb419cf73924fe129437185


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1433749 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Make sure that the spec file is vrms-rpm.spec on import into Dist-Git. Otherwise, looks good to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

I have sponsored you into the packager group. Welcome to the Fedora Packagers group!

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/vrms-rpm

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7867abc53f

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b845d4ecb4

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-78b01e2393

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-78b01e2393

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-98ccd46108

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-bbbae25d00

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b845d4ecb4

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7867abc53f

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-98ccd46108

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-bbbae25d00

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.