It is not ready due to not installed header files: https://github.com/Nitrokey/libnitrokey/issues/70

Unfortunately we can't move forward without this

New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libnitrokey-3.0-0.1.20171007git.544f69c.fc28.src.rpm

New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc28.src.rpm

Hi Igor,

- Is there a reson for versioning the package as pre-release of 3.0 instead of a post-release of 2.0? I could not find any tags upstream pointing that the next release will be 3.0 and you may have problems if upstream releases 2.1 our 2.0.1 for example.

- The LICENSE file should be shipped in the -devel sub-package as well

- The include/hidapi/hidapi.h file seems to be licensed under GPLv3, taken for another repository. Shouldn't and 'and' tag for GPLv3 be added in the License tag?

- Finally, rpmlint complains about unused shard lib dependency for libm. Was this required by the compiler? Just making sure you are aware.


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

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

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: 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
-------
Checking: libnitrokey-3.0-0.1.20171007git.544f69c.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libnitrokey-devel-3.0-0.1.20171007git.544f69c.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libnitrokey-debuginfo-3.0-0.1.20171007git.544f69c.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          libnitrokey-3.0-0.1.20171007git.544f69c.fc28.src.rpm
libnitrokey-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libnitrokey-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libnitrokey-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libnitrokey-debuginfo-3.0-0.1.20171007git.544f69c.fc28.x86_64.rpm
libnitrokey-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
libnitrokey.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Nitrokey/libnitrokey <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libnitrokey.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libnitrokey-log.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
libnitrokey.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libnitrokey.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
libnitrokey-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Nitrokey/libnitrokey <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libnitrokey-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libnitrokey-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libnitrokey-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Nitrokey/libnitrokey <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libnitrokey-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
libnitrokey (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libhidapi-libusb.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libnitrokey-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libnitrokey(x86-64)
    libnitrokey-log.so.3()(64bit)
    libnitrokey.so.3()(64bit)

libnitrokey-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libnitrokey:
    libnitrokey
    libnitrokey(x86-64)
    libnitrokey-log.so.3()(64bit)
    libnitrokey.so.3()(64bit)

libnitrokey-devel:
    libnitrokey-devel
    libnitrokey-devel(x86-64)

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Nitrokey/libnitrokey/archive/544f69c3e8cd744db0b8f20aade475159fef1d5e/libnitrokey-544f69c.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 54976e845f7fcb0e31afacc03ee15ca423c2836c232f245a2bd0e9c0a8bd06af
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 54976e845f7fcb0e31afacc03ee15ca423c2836c232f245a2bd0e9c0a8bd06af

> - Is there a reson for versioning the package as pre-release of 3.0 instead of a post-release of 2.0? I could not find any tags upstream pointing that the next release will be 3.0 and you may have problems if upstream releases 2.1 our 2.0.1 for example.

upstream CMakeLists.txt has 3.0-alpha and also soname has 3.0.0 version

> - The LICENSE file should be shipped in the -devel sub-package as well
No because it requires main package

> - The include/hidapi/hidapi.h file seems to be licensed under GPLv3, taken for another repository. Shouldn't and 'and' tag for GPLv3 be added in the License tag?

It is not installed and I will make sure to remove it in %prep during import

> - Finally, rpmlint complains about unused shard lib dependency for libm. Was this required by the compiler? Just making sure you are aware.

I will report a bug to upstream. However, this is not blocker.

> It is not installed and I will make sure to remove it in %prep during import
Fixed, URLs are same.

> I will report a bug to upstream. However, this is not blocker.
I don't see this though.

> upstream CMakeLists.txt has 3.0-alpha and also soname has 3.0.0 version

Probably mistyped when grep'ing for it.

> 
> > - The LICENSE file should be shipped in the -devel sub-package as well
> No because it requires main package

You are right: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing

> 
> > - The include/hidapi/hidapi.h file seems to be licensed under GPLv3, taken for another repository. Shouldn't and 'and' tag for GPLv3 be added in the License tag?
> 
> It is not installed and I will make sure to remove it in %prep during import

OK

> > - Finally, rpmlint complains about unused shard lib dependency for libm. Was this required by the compiler? Just making sure you are aware.
> 
> I will report a bug to upstream. However, this is not blocker.

No, it is not :)

Package looks good, approved

Thanks a lot for review!

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libnitrokey

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8ad2a60bfc

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-95b9d1e49f

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-33ccf4fe52

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.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-2017-33ccf4fe52

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.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-2017-95b9d1e49f

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-8ad2a60bfc

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libnitrokey-3.0-0.2.20171007git.fa871ec.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.