https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2390640
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- This package is very close to being ready! It looks like I forgot to explain how to handle the License expression in the initial review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The problem you were originally having with %cargo_license > LICENSE.dependencies was that ">" and "LICENSE.dependencies" were being interpreted as arguments for the %cargo_license macro by the RPM spec file processor. These arguments were ignored (because %cargo_license does not take arguments, and unexpected arguments to an RPM macro do not produce an error), so your detailed license breakdown was written to stdout and not redirected to LICENSE.dependencies. You fixed this with {%cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies which worked, but in an unexpected way. The second } keeps the macro processor from treating the rest of the line as RPM macro arguments, then %cargo_license is expanded inside the curly braces, which remain in the expansion and function as a non-subshell command grouping for the shell, https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Command-Grouping.html. This ends up acheiving the intended effect, but it’s not quite obvious to the reader, and it’s a bit brittle: without whitespace around the %cargo_license macro, it could end up breaking if the expansion of %cargo_license started to have something that interacted with the curly braces – like if the implementation itself were wrapped in curly braces instead of (). What I think you wanted (and what I would recommend in any case) is to write %{cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies where the curly braces are interpreted by the RPM spec file processor and don’t make it through to the shell. This syntax would allow you to put any spec-file macro aarguments inside the braces, like this (which has the same result since %cargo_license ignores any arguments): %{cargo_license some useless arguments} > LICENSE.dependencies - It looks like I missed commenting on %{cargo_license_summary} and the License tag in the initial review. The purpose of %{cargo_license_summary} is to account for the licenses of the Rust dependencies that are statically linked into the meow binary, and which therefore contribute to the license of the binary RPM. You can do that something like this: # The entire source is MIT. The following output from %%{cargo_license_summary} # reflects the licenses of statically-linked Rust library dependencies. See # LICENSES.dependencies for a full breakdown. # # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 License: %{shrink: MIT AND (Apache-2.0 AND MIT) AND (BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) } When you update the package, you can check the output of %{cargo_license_summary} in the build logs, paste the updated output into the comment, and revise the License expression as needed. Note that the order of the License expression is not important, and there are several conventions. Here I have followed Fabio Valentini’s usual convention of putting the “base” license first, then simple license sub-expressions (of which there are none) in alphabetical order, then compound sub-expressions in alphabetical order. I haven’t reordered terms within sub-expressions, although I personally sometimes do this on packages with huge dependency trees and complicated License tags. Notice also that (A AND B) and (B AND A) are equivalent, and I have used this fact to de-duplicate the expression: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) is equivalent to (MIT OR Apache-2.0). ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - You don’t need to pass "-m 755" to "install", since (for historical reasons, as it was deisgned specifically as a *binary* installer) install defaults to executable permissions. However, there’s no harm in doing so. - You may want to link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval in an explanatory comment above the ExcludeArch, as this makes it clearer that this is the sole reason for omitting x86, but you are by no means required to. ===== 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", "MIT License". 186 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2390640-meow/licensecheck.txt The MIT license is correct, but licenses of statically-linked Rust dependencies need to be accounted for. See Issues. It looks like I forgot to mention this in the initial review. [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 [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. [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 2233 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no usable tests included in the package, but everything appears to be set up correctly to 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm meow-2.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpno0mlxdq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 meow.src: W: strange-permission meow.spec 666 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: meow-debuginfo-2.1.5-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp3dymizwg')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pixelsergey/meow/archive/v2.1.5/meow-v2.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00ba73786c02e7726f5143c95672d69adbc5595f4afb4841e6e33e5fc7b9c511 Requires -------- meow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(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) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- meow: meow meow(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2390640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Python, Haskell, PHP, fonts, R, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2390640 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202390640%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
