https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373805 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== 1. No debuginfo or debugsource packages are produced. This seems to be deliberate, but that is contrary to Fedora packaging guidelines. In addition, I see that the standard LDFLAGS have been copied verbatim into the spec file. That may break in the future if Fedora's standard LDFLAGS change. Both issues can be addressed by making the following changes to the spec file: - Remove "%define debug_package %{nil}" - Change the "export LDFLAGS" in %build to this: export LDFLAGS='\ -X main.appVersion=%{version} \ -X main.commit=%{commit} \ -X main.shortCommit=%{shortcommit} \ -linkmode external -extldflags "-pie -fPIE %{build_ldflags}"' 2. Note the unused-direct-shlib-dependency rpmlint warning below. I see 3 instances of "-ldflags=\"-O2\" \"-g\" \"-lresolv\"" in the build logs. That does not include the Fedora flags; in particular, -Wl,--as-needed is missing. This leads to an unneeded and unwanted dependency on libresolv. I'm not sure where those ldflags invocations come from. Can they be modified to include Fedora's LDFLAGS? 3. Is there any possibility of creating a man page, perhaps with help2man? ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. See issue #1 above. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz [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 790 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. [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]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests, so "all tests pass" is vacuously true. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz-1.0.11-1.20250621git9bf7c06.fc43.x86_64.rpm golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz-1.0.11-1.20250621git9bf7c06.fc43.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/tmphcwcdhs8')] checks: 32, packages: 2 golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.src: E: spelling-error ('webhook', 'Summary(en_US) webhook -> web hook, web-hook, webfoot') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.src: E: spelling-error ('scrobbling', 'Summary(en_US) scrobbling -> scribbling, scrabbling, scrolling') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.src: E: spelling-error ('webhook', '%description -l en_US webhook -> web hook, web-hook, webfoot') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.src: E: spelling-error ('scrobbling', '%description -l en_US scrobbling -> scribbling, scrabbling, scrolling') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('webhook', 'Summary(en_US) webhook -> web hook, web-hook, webfoot') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scrobbling', 'Summary(en_US) scrobbling -> scribbling, scrabbling, scrolling') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('webhook', '%description -l en_US webhook -> web hook, web-hook, webfoot') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scrobbling', '%description -l en_US scrobbling -> scribbling, scrabbling, scrolling') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beetbrainz golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.11-1 ['1.0.11-1.20250621git9bf7c06.fc43', '1.0.11-1.20250621git9bf7c06'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ 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: 1 golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/beetbrainz /lib64/libresolv.so.2 golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('webhook', 'Summary(en_US) webhook -> web hook, web-hook, webfoot') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scrobbling', 'Summary(en_US) scrobbling -> scribbling, scrabbling, scrolling') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('webhook', '%description -l en_US webhook -> web hook, web-hook, webfoot') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scrobbling', '%description -l en_US scrobbling -> scribbling, scrabbling, scrolling') golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beetbrainz golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.11-1 ['1.0.11-1.20250621git9bf7c06.fc43', '1.0.11-1.20250621git9bf7c06'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/gbcox/beetbrainz/archive/9bf7c065a2f3694b4e4e61c2cfa6e8dfb048fc2c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 05ac885ce5269a86988183470a7b4c82ef4affa2a033f9b91cc362824d57b43d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05ac885ce5269a86988183470a7b4c82ef4affa2a033f9b91cc362824d57b43d Requires -------- golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz) libc.so.6()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz: config(golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz) golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz golang-codeberg-gbcox-beetbrainz(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2373805 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Ruby, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, R, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP 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=2373805 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202373805%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
