Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 1602059 - Review Request: libsafec - safec fork with all C11 Annex K functions
Summary: Review Request: libsafec - safec fork with all C11 Annex K functions
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2018-07-17 17:30 UTC by Juston Li
Modified: 2018-07-20 20:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2018-07-20 20:47:52 UTC
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 2018-07-18 16:00:11 UTC
Version:	03032018
Release:	2.0.g570fa5%{?dist}

 - That's not a correct version/release, don't use the date but the version provided on Github:

Version:	3.3
Release:	2%{?dist}

 - Add a comment above each patch explaining why they are needed or ling to an upstream bug:

Patch0:		pic_flag.patch 
Patch1:		pkgconfig_include.patch

 - Capitalize the summary and description

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - ldconfig is not needed anymore starting Fedona 28:

%post -n libsafec -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n libsafec -p /sbin/ldconfig


 - Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root) It is already the default.

 - Not needed:


   You already included these files by specifying %{_includedir}/libsafec

 - Remove %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0

 - Thus you have an unpackaged .la file that you need to remove in %install:

find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 2018-07-18 16:13:55 UTC
 - You must install the license with %license in %files and should install the readme file:

%files -n libsafec
%license COPYING

%files -n libsafec-devel

%files -n libsafec-check
%license COPYING

 - Use .* instead of .gz for the man page as the compression can change in the future:


Package Review

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

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11
     (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "ISC", "FSF All Permissive". 543 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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
[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]: 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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[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 =====

[-]: 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
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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 =====

[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: libsafec-3.3-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm
libsafec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) safec -> cafes, safe, safes
libsafec.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C safec fork with all C11 Annex K functions
libsafec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US safec -> cafes, safe, safes
libsafec.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libsafec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libsafec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) safec -> cafes, safe, safes
libsafec.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C safec fork with all C11 Annex K functions
libsafec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US safec -> cafes, safe, safes
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Comment 3 Juston Li 2018-07-19 15:07:17 UTC
Made changes based on your feedback



libsafec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Safec -> Cafes, Safe, Safes
libsafec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Safec -> Cafes, Safe, Safes
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Thanks! I really appreciate the review!

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 2018-07-19 16:49:17 UTC
All ok, package approved.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-07-20 17:32:00 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.