Bug 4112

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

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

- rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0/bin/rfpkg is licensed under GPLv3+
  LICENSE file is GPLv2 ??

===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/sagitter/Downloads/rfpkg-minimal/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]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag
rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag
rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rfpkg
rfpkg-minimal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag
rfpkg-minimal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feeding
rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feeding
rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rfpkg
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Requires
--------
rfpkg-minimal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    curl



Provides
--------
rfpkg-minimal:
    rfpkg-minimal



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/TC01/rfpkg-minimal/archive/0.1.0.tar.gz#/rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3691a9fd574f92afa798e5d95e668faacd35b191ff74f776e8988b894eb87c78
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3691a9fd574f92afa798e5d95e668faacd35b191ff74f776e8988b894eb87c78


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386-rpmfusion_free -rn rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
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

Ben, thx for the work, I'm okay with the package as it is, but few comments:

We might end up with more than free and nonfree namespaces in the future, so it would be better to be able to "read" which namespace it is.
The logic to try to dl from different namespace is good.

It would be fine not to conflict with rfpkg in order to debug rfpkg-minimal in parallel, I will tune koji to use rfpkg-minimal instead of rfpkg once introduced.
So you can rename your fork script to rfpkg-minimal directly.

Do you have a github account, so you can use https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/rfpkg-minimal instead ? 

Thx

> - rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0/bin/rfpkg is licensed under GPLv3+
>  LICENSE file is GPLv2 ??

That's exciting. This is an issue inherited from fedpkg-minimal that I didn't notice... take a look at:

* https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/LICENSE
* https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/bin/fedpkg

The fedpkg-minimal spec claims the version is "GPLv2+". https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fedpkg-minimal/sources/

I have filed https://fedorahosted.org/fedpkg-minimal/ticket/2 asking for clarification. In the mean time, should we block on a response to that ticket or assume GPLv2+ for now?

> We might end up with more than free and nonfree namespaces in the future, so it would be better to be able to "read" which namespace it is.
> The logic to try to dl from different namespace is good.

Good to know; I agree that this would be better than hardcoding a list of the namespaces in the script. I'll see if I can implement some better string parsing in bash when I get a chance.

> It would be fine not to conflict with rfpkg in order to debug rfpkg-minimal in parallel, I will tune koji to use rfpkg-minimal instead of rfpkg once introduced. 
> So you can rename your fork script to rfpkg-minimal directly.

Sounds good, I'll fix that (and deal with the licensing problem) and upload a new version of the script and package.

> Do you have a github account, so you can use https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/rfpkg-minimal instead ? 

I do; my github username is TC01 (https://github.com/TC01). Should I fork that repository, push my commit history, and open a pull request?

(In reply to comment #3)
> > - rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0/bin/rfpkg is licensed under GPLv3+
> >  LICENSE file is GPLv2 ??
> 
> That's exciting. This is an issue inherited from fedpkg-minimal that I didn't
> notice... take a look at:
> 
> * https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/LICENSE
> * https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/bin/fedpkg
> 
> The fedpkg-minimal spec claims the version is "GPLv2+".
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fedpkg-minimal/sources/
> 
> I have filed https://fedorahosted.org/fedpkg-minimal/ticket/2 asking for
> clarification. In the mean time, should we block on a response to that ticket
> or assume GPLv2+ for now?
> 

It looks to me like a venial error and those licenses are not even compatible. I guess you should indicate the stricter license (GPLv2), waiting for a reply from original author.

Okay, new version uploaded with rfpkg -> rfpkg-minimal and a comment added to the license tag linking to the fedpkg-minimal issue I filed.

Spec URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/rfpkg/rfpkg-minimal.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/rfpkg/rfpkg-minimal-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Package approved.

Great, thanks for the review!

Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: rfpkg-minimal
Short Description: Fork of fedpkg-minimal for RPM Fusion
Owners: tc01
Branches: f24
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free

Imported and built for F24 and F25.