Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped-1.6.2-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: spiped (pronounced "ess-pipe-dee") is a utility for creating symmetrically encrypted and authenticated pipes between socket addresses, so that one may connect to one address (e.g., a UNIX socket on localhost) and transparently have a connection established to another address (e.g., a UNIX socket on a different system). This is similar to 'ssh -L' functionality, but does not use SSH and requires a pre-shared symmetric key. spipe (pronounced "ess-pipe") is a utility which acts as an spiped protocol client (i.e., connects to an spiped daemon), taking input from the standard input and writing data read back to the standard output. Fedora Account System Username: roam This is my first Fedora package, so I will need a sponsor. Hence, the spec currently lives in my GitLab repository, and the SRPM file is available in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/roam/spiped/build/7057817/ A couple of notes on some fedora-review items: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: This project does not use gnulib. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: The rpmlint tool reports several false positives, all misspellings. Should I create an spiped.rpmlint file to override them? [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: Upstream is aware of the install.patch change (it is also present in the Debian package of spiped that I maintain), and their response (via private mail) was "unfortunatly install(1) isn't a POSIX command, and I couldn't find a way to rewrite our Makefile so that it would be easier to patch this in". [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Upstream only provides SHA256 hashes, not OpenPGP signatures. Thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions! Since this is my first attempt to submit a Fedora package for review, please feel free to point out anything I have missed (I have no doubt that there will be something, possibly many somethings). G'luck, Peter
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thanks for contributing to Fedora. The spec file and srpm file links need to be resolvable by wget so that they can be downloaded by the fedora-review tool spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped-1.6.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
Right, I didn't realize that was part of the automation. Thanks, fixed. Do I need to do anything to trigger another run of the automated Fedora Review Service processing, or will it pick up the edited comment 0 automatically? G'luck, Peter
It picks up the last added spec and srpm urls.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057817-spiped/spiped-1.6.2-1.fc41.src.rpm (ICBW, but it seems to me that the Fedora Review Service did not notice that I edited an existing comment; I'm not complaining, this is reasonable behavior)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7061633 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2265862-spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07061633-spiped/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
> Group: Applications Not used in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections > Source0: https://www.tarsnap.com/spiped/spiped-1.6.2.tgz This makes it necessary to update the URL every time you bump the package to a new version. Consider using the %{version} macro as part of the URL. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_version > Patch0: install.patch Please add a comment describing what the patch does. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines > %check > %{__make} test Using macro forms of system executables is discouraged. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros > %files > %{_mandir}/man1/spipe.1.gz > %{_mandir}/man1/spiped.1.gz Do not assume man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match any compression format (including no compression). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07189163-spiped/spiped.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/roam/spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07189163-spiped/spiped-1.6.2-2.fc41.src.rpm (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #7) > > Group: Applications > Not used in Fedora. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections No idea how I missed that one; I swear I looked through the list of tags that should not be used... thanks! > > Source0: https://www.tarsnap.com/spiped/spiped-1.6.2.tgz > This makes it necessary to update the URL every time you bump the package to > a new version. > Consider using the %{version} macro as part of the URL. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > #_using_version OK, this is a funny one, since I already do that in a couple of other specfiles for internal consumption. But yeah, I had missed it in this one. Thanks! > > Patch0: install.patch > Please add a comment describing what the patch does. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines Right, I guess I am used to other packaging systems where it is accepted that the patch files themselves will contain both a one-line comment and a longer description. Yeah, I admit I must have missed that part in the guidelines. > > %check > > %{__make} test > Using macro forms of system executables is discouraged. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros Yep, I was a bit unsure about that one, too; I guess I thought that using an internal macro was somehow better than not using a macro at all and, I don't know, allowing the use of an alternative make(1) implementation? But yeah, apparently that is not the common thinking. Thanks for pointing it out. > > %files > > %{_mandir}/man1/spipe.1.gz > > %{_mandir}/man1/spiped.1.gz > Do not assume man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match any > compression format (including no compression). > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages Yeah, again, I guess I am used to other packaging systems where it is pretty much a rule that manual pages must be gzipped during the build. But yeah, the guidelines do not say that, true. Thanks a lot for your review! There is a new copr build with fixes for these issues. G'luck, Peter
Created attachment 2022767 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7061633 to 7189198
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7189198 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2265862-spiped/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07189198-spiped/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Three minor issues: 1) There is a blank line between "%description" and the actual package description text. This blank line is actually carried over to the description in the resulting .rpm file. Please remove it. 2) When installing files with install(1), timestamps of the files are not preserved. Please edit the patch to use the "-p" option for install(1). 3) You use macros inside the changelog text (e.g. "use %{version} in the Source0 line"). These macros still get expanded, even though they're inside the changelog. You can use "%%{macro}" to prevent this. Other than that, looks okay to me. Please fix the above issues when importing the package to dist-git. PACKAGE APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [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 0 bytes in 0 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Note: Successfully built in koji. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=115382894 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: spiped-1.6.2-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm spiped-debuginfo-1.6.2-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm spiped-debugsource-1.6.2-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm spiped-1.6.2-2.fc41.src.rpm ============== rpmlint session starts ============= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpgze0jsea')] checks: 32, packages: 4 spiped.src: E: spelling-error ('ess', '%description -l en_US ess -> eds, es, less') spiped.src: E: spelling-error ('dee', '%description -l en_US dee -> Dee, see, fee') spiped.src: E: spelling-error ('localhost', '%description -l en_US localhost -> local host, local-host, holocaust') spiped.src: E: spelling-error ('pre', '%description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee') spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ess', '%description -l en_US ess -> eds, es, less') spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dee', '%description -l en_US dee -> Dee, see, fee') spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('localhost', '%description -l en_US localhost -> local host, local-host, holocaust') spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pre', '%description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee') spiped.spec:60: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version} spiped.spec:63: W: macro-in-%changelog %{__make} spiped.spec:63: W: macro-in-%changelog %check ====== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 3 warnings, 23 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 1.2 s ====== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: spiped-debuginfo-1.6.2-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============== rpmlint session starts ============= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp3u7ohhd2')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ====== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ====== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 3 spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ess', '%description -l en_US ess -> eds, es, less') spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dee', '%description -l en_US dee -> Dee, see, fee') spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('localhost', '%description -l en_US localhost -> local host, local-host, holocaust') spiped.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pre', '%description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://www.tarsnap.com/spiped/spiped-1.6.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 05d4687d12d11d7f9888d43f3d80c541b7721c987038d085f71c91bb06204567 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05d4687d12d11d7f9888d43f3d80c541b7721c987038d085f71c91bb06204567 Requires -------- spiped (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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_3.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) spiped-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): spiped-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- spiped: spiped spiped(x86-64) spiped-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) spiped-debuginfo spiped-debuginfo(x86-64) spiped-debugsource: spiped-debugsource spiped-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2265862 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Peter, are you still interested in this package?
Yes, I am. However, my application for sponsorship into the packagers group is still pending: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/642 Thanks for your continued interest! :) G'luck, Peter