https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Bug ID: 2361484 Summary: Review Request: 7zip - A file archiver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/7zip.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/7zip-24.09-1.fc43.src.rpm
Description: 7-Zip is a file archiver with a high compression ratio. The main features of 7-Zip are:
* High compression ratio in 7z format with LZMA and LZMA2 compression * Supported formats: * Packing / unpacking: 7z, XZ, BZIP2, GZIP, TAR, ZIP and WIM * Unpacking only: AR, ARJ, CAB, CHM, CPIO, CramFS, DMG, EXT, FAT, GPT, HFS, IHEX, ISO, LZH, LZMA, MBR, MSI, NSIS, NTFS, QCOW2, RPM, SquashFS, UDF, UEFI, VDI, VHD, VMDK, WIM, XAR and Z. * For ZIP and GZIP formats, 7-Zip provides a compression ratio that is 2-10 % better than the ratio provided by PKZip and WinZip * Strong AES-256 encryption in 7z and ZIP formats * Powerful command line version
Fedora Account System Username: salimma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
--- Comment #1 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131823315
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://7-zip.org Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8949552 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |carl@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- Updated spec and SRPM (same links) to rename binary to 7zz (matching upstream name) and to remove a trailing - in changelog
This does not obsolete / replace p7zip yet, we can do that later when this ships all the different 7zip compilation targets (7z, 7za, 7zr)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
--- Comment #4 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- Updated spec and SRPM
Now builds all the targets expected, and properly provide upgrade path for p7zip and p7zip-plugins
A patch is provided so we don't need to do the hacky "put the binary in libexec then add wrapper" because now it can find the 7z.so on its own
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
--- Comment #5 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- New Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131979792
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
--- Comment #6 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/salimma/7zip-wip/build/8967916/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- This package looks really good, thanks for putting in the time to work on this.
I do want to note that the other 7zip review request by Sergio in bug 2346041 was posted first. Normally I would stick with the original review and close subsequent ones as duplicates, but in this case this spec file is in much better shape than the first one. I can see in the other review's comments that Sergio is even copying in sections from this spec file into his. I think at this point the best path forward is to approve this review, and then after it's imported to distgit add Sergio as a co-maintainer.
Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License and/or Public domain". 1257 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/carl/packaging/reviews/7zip/copr- build-8967916/review-7zip/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: 7zip (description), 7zip-reduced (description), 7zip- standalone (description), 7zip-standalone-all (description) [-]: 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. [x]: 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 (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 33281 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in 7zip- reduced , 7zip-standalone , 7zip-standalone-all [x]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: SourceX is a working URL.
===== 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) CC| |sergio@serjux.com
--- Comment #8 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- *** Bug 2346041 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/7zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-19a3bd9908 (7zip-24.09-4.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-19a3bd9908
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361484
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-05-08 19:20:11
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-19a3bd9908 (7zip-24.09-4.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com