[Bug 2053935] New: Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

Bug ID: 2053935
           Summary: Review Request: googleapis - Public interface
                    definitions of Google APIs
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis-0-0.1.20220213git7c7a99a...
Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82765596
Description: Public interface definitions of Google APIs
Fedora Account System Username: fale

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

Mikel Olasagasti Uranga  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga  ---
- No need of %build section
- No need of debug_package part

About file ownership, package should own also %{_includedir}/google:

- Add "%dir %{_includedir}/google"
- Change to %{_includedir}/google/*

This causes the following warning with fedora-review, other packages also own
%{_includedir}/google:

[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/include/google(gperftools-devel, sparsehash-devel, protobuf-c-
     devel, protobuf-devel)

- Package should have a -devel subpackage for proto files like `protobuf` or
`protobuf-c` do.

- You may want to switch to rpmautospec,
https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/index.html For the `Release`
tag you check https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/shdoc.spec on how you
can use it.

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Thanks for the suggestions!
I've rebuilt it:

Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis-0-1.20220213git7c7a99a.f...
Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82765597

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #3 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Sorry, wrong koji link:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83060093

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #4 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
I've noticed that I missed one of the points in the previous build.
This new build should address them all!

Thanks a lot Mikel :-).

SPEC: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis.spec
SRPM:
https://fale.fedorapeople.org/googleapis/googleapis-0-1.20220213git7c7a99a.f...
Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84321219

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

Mikel Olasagasti Uranga  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga  ---
Thanks for doing the changes, package approved, but please change the order of
`snapinfo` and `shortcommit` %global definitions.

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

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

===== 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. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "*No copyright* [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 959 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /tmp/2053935-googleapis/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/google(protobuf-
     c-devel, protobuf-devel, gperftools-devel, sparsehash-devel)
[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.
[x]: 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.
[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 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:
[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).
[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.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/archive/7c7a99a90e2d898aad479010748...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
9c911320682287bf5d22e6da84be56355c95068d8bcb903e5d6e3cae04c7936a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9c911320682287bf5d22e6da84be56355c95068d8bcb903e5d6e3cae04c7936a

Requires
--------
googleapis-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
googleapis-devel:
    googleapis-devel

Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2053935
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Python, Perl, PHP, C/C++,
fonts, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/googleapis

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-e1d7d67da8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e1d7d67da8

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2022-04-12 15:46:22

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-e1d7d67da8 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a *`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 *`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-eba32d3c5a has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 2053935] Review Request: googleapis - Public interface definitions of Google APIs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053935

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-a93fd35df9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.