[Bug 2242838] New: Review Request: squashfs-tools-ng - A new set of tools and libraries for working with SquashFS images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
Bug ID: 2242838 Summary: Review Request: squashfs-tools-ng - A new set of tools and libraries for working with SquashFS images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dave@trudgian.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Squashfs is a highly compressed read-only filesystem for Linux. This package contains modified utilities for manipulating squashfs filesystems. Fedora Account System Username: dctrud
squashfs-tools-ng supplies alternative binaries, and a library, for manipulating SquashFS filesystem images. It was branched from squashfs-tools some time ago, and is developed independently:
https://github.com/AgentD/squashfs-tools-ng
One of the aims of packaging squashfs-tools-ng in Fedora is that it can subsequently be added to EPEL. The older versions of squashfs-tools in EL distros are missing functionality present in newer squashfs-tools versions in Fedora. Having squashfs-tools-ng packaged would offer a route to providing similar functionality, given that squashfs-tools will not be upgraded in EL distros.
Ultimately, this will allow packaging of the 4.0.0 version of SingularityCE in EPEL which depends on either squashfs-tools-ng, or a recent squashfs-tools.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/AgentD/s | |quashfs-tools-ng
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6507991 (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=2242838
Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |tim@goat.re
--- Comment #2 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- This is an unofficial review as I am not in the packager group yet.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Devel subpackage does not own /usr/include/sqfs - License field does not include licenses of mentioned exceptions. See https://github.com/AgentD/squashfs-tools-ng/blob/master/COPYING.md - Look into rpmlint error: squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.a - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Dist tag is present. Is there a reason not to use %autorelease macro?
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD 0-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 2-Clause License", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 95 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/2242838-squashfs-tools-ng/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/sqfs [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/sqfs [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 36749 bytes in 3 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: squashfs-tools-ng-static. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [-]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: 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: squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-devel-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-static-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp5en9fkyl')] checks: 31, packages: 6
squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.a squashfs-tools-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.so ================================================ 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.4 s ===============================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp_amceuy6')] checks: 31, packages: 1
================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===============================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 5
squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.a squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.so 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.7 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- squashfs-tools-ng: /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://infraroot.at/pub/squashfs/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6402a2844a5bad638e87462423cd30fd3df8f4e386ae7bbd6e5c32268f5d8b8c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6402a2844a5bad638e87462423cd30fd3df8f4e386ae7bbd6e5c32268f5d8b8c
Requires -------- squashfs-tools-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) liblzo2.so.2()(64bit) libsquashfs.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
squashfs-tools-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconfig(liblz4) pkgconfig(liblzma) pkgconfig(libzstd) pkgconfig(zlib) squashfs-tools-ng(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): squashfs-tools-ng-devel(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- squashfs-tools-ng: libsquashfs.so.1()(64bit) squashfs-tools-ng squashfs-tools-ng(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-devel: pkgconfig(libsquashfs1) squashfs-tools-ng-devel squashfs-tools-ng-devel(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-static: squashfs-tools-ng-static squashfs-tools-ng-static(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsquashfs.so.1.4.0-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource: squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242838 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, R, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #4 from David Trudgian dave@trudgian.net --- Many thanks for the review. Have amended and updated the spec / src.rpm files:
Spec URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Issues:
- Devel subpackage does not own /usr/include/sqfs
Added a %dir entry.
- License field does not include licenses of mentioned exceptions. See
https://github.com/AgentD/squashfs-tools-ng/blob/master/COPYING.md
Added additional SPDX identifiers.
- Look into rpmlint error: squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo
/usr/lib64/libsquashfs.a
Not sure how to end up with a static library with debuginfo here, so I removed the static package.
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
Moved unversioned link to -devel package.
- Dist tag is present. Is there a reason not to use %autorelease macro?
Changes spec to use %autorelease and %autochangelog macros.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1993706 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1993706&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6507991 to 6522577
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6522577 (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=2242838
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
%dir %{_includedir}/sqfs %{_includedir}/sqfs/*
This can be simplified to one line: "%{_includedir}/sqfs/"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
%license COPYING* %{_libdir}/libsquashfs.so.1*
Please split out the library into its own -libs subpackage and make the other subpackages require them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #9 from David Trudgian dave@trudgian.net --- Many thanks for the comments. Have amended and updated the spec / src.rpm files:
Spec URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
%dir %{_includedir}/sqfs %{_includedir}/sqfs/*
This can be simplified to one line: "%{_includedir}/sqfs/"
Done.
%license COPYING* %{_libdir}/libsquashfs.so.1*
Please split out the library into its own -libs subpackage and make the other subpackages require them.
Done... though I'm not certain that I've specified the dependencies properly here? Is there a shorter way?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1993729 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1993729&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6522577 to 6523024
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6523024 (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=2242838
--- Comment #12 from David Trudgian dave@trudgian.net --- Thanks again for the taking a look at this. Is there anything else I need to do in order to move forward in the review process?
As this is a dependency that is needed in EPEL in order to package a new major version of SingularityCE there, it'd be great if it were possible to get it in by the end of the year.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
%files libs %license COPYING* %{_libdir}/libsquashfs.so.1*
This glob is too greedy. Can you change it to "%{_libdir}/libsquashfs.so.1{,.*}"? That way it doesn't match on something like "libsquashfs.so.10".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #14 from David Trudgian dtrudg@sylabs.io --- Many thanks. Have amended and updated the spec / src.rpm files:
Spec URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #13)
%files libs %license COPYING* %{_libdir}/libsquashfs.so.1*
This glob is too greedy. Can you change it to "%{_libdir}/libsquashfs.so.1{,.*}"? That way it doesn't match on something like "libsquashfs.so.10".
Done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1997835 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1997835&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6523024 to 6612200
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6612200 (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=2242838
--- Comment #17 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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]: %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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 116490 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in squashfs-tools-ng-libs , squashfs-tools-ng-devel [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. [!]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-libs-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-devel-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp7ldg2qxf')] checks: 31, packages: 6
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-libs-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpusk7ewdn')] checks: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "squashfs-tools-ng-libs-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "squashfs-tools-ng-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "squashfs-tools-ng-libs". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "squashfs-tools-ng". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 6
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://infraroot.at/pub/squashfs/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6402a2844a5bad638e87462423cd30fd3df8f4e386ae7bbd6e5c32268f5d8b8c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6402a2844a5bad638e87462423cd30fd3df8f4e386ae7bbd6e5c32268f5d8b8c
Requires -------- squashfs-tools-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) liblzo2.so.2()(64bit) libsquashfs.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) squashfs-tools-ng-libs(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
squashfs-tools-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsquashfs.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(liblz4) pkgconfig(liblzma) pkgconfig(libzstd) pkgconfig(zlib) squashfs-tools-ng-libs(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- squashfs-tools-ng: squashfs-tools-ng squashfs-tools-ng(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-libs: libsquashfs.so.1()(64bit) squashfs-tools-ng-libs squashfs-tools-ng-libs(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-devel: pkgconfig(libsquashfs1) squashfs-tools-ng-devel squashfs-tools-ng-devel(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo(x86-64)
squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource: squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name squashfs-tools-ng --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, R, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #18 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
It seems the upstream project supports running tests with "make check", can you try to run it in the %check section?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #19 from David Trudgian dtrudg@sylabs.io --- Spec URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://dctrud.fedorapeople.org/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #18)
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
It seems the upstream project supports running tests with "make check", can you try to run it in the %check section?
Apologies for missing that. Added `make check` to a `%check` section. The tests run do pass for me in a `fedpkg mockbuild`.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1997836 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1997836&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6612200 to 6612279
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6612279 (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=2242838
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #22 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Looks like everything is good now, so...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/squashfs-tools-ng
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-aa21800785 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-aa21800785
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-11-08 13:40:27
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-aa21800785 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com