https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388768



--- Comment #36 from Zbigniew JÄ™drzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> ---
I think this looks very good now. Let's go through the checklist:
- package name is OK (nix)
- license is acceptable for Fedora (LGPL-2.1-or-later)
- license is specified correctly 
- latest upstream version
- BReq/Req/Prov/Rec look OK
- builds and installs OK ;)
- the binary is functional
- %check is not present, but required dep is missing, so this is OK
- systemd macros are used appropriately
- header files and libraries are properly split out

rpmlint:
> nix-daemon.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/nix-daemon.fish
> nix-daemon.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/nix-daemon.sh
Sadly this is where profile files need to be installed.
This is fine.

> nix.src: W: strange-permission 13995.patch 666
> nix.src: W: strange-permission 14001.patch 666
> nix.src: W: strange-permission README.md 666
> nix.src: W: strange-permission nix-2.31.1.tar.gz 666
> nix.src: W: strange-permission nix.conf 666
> nix.src: W: strange-permission nix.spec 666
> nix.src: W: strange-permission registry.json 666
This doesn't matter. Permissions will be normalized
when importing into dist-git.

> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-build
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-channel
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-collect-garbage
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-copy-closure
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-env
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-hash
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-instantiate
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-prefetch-url
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-shell
> nix.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-store
> nix-daemon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nix-daemon
> nix-daemon.noarch: W: no-documentation
> nix-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Happens.

> nix-daemon.noarch: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation 
> /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/nix-daemon.conf
I think fedora-review hasn't caught up with this being automated by
%filetriggers.

> nix-daemon.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/nix-daemon nix
This is fine. nix-daemon Requires nix, and nix provides the target file.

> nix-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/nix-libs/COPYING
Meh.

> nix-daemon.noarch: W: tmpfile-not-in-filelist /nix/var/nix/daemon-socket
> nix-daemon.noarch: W: tmpfile-not-in-filelist /nix/var/nix/builds
This one is a problem. I think that until we have secured the
FPC exception, it's not OK to provide a config that will create /nix/
automatically. This is what would happen when systemd-tmpfiles is run.
So I think this file must be skippped for now, or maybe renamed to
/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/nix-daemon.conf.example for now.

> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 27 warnings, 65 filtered, 1 
> badness; has taken 1.4 s 

> %files
> %{_libdir}/libnix*.so.*

The guidelines now say that using globs is not allowed. The version is defined
in meson as:
> nix_soversion = meson.project_version().strip('pre')
So maybe something like this:

%{lua:macros.version_no_pre = macros.version:gsub('pre','')}
%{_libdir}/libnix*.so.%{version_no_pre}

(This is a bit convoluted, but I wanted to avoid shelling out and
%define nix_soversion %{gsub %version pre} causes a syntax error and
%define nix_soversion %{gsub %version pre ''} causes a literal '' to be present
and
%define nix_soversion %{lua:macros.version:gsub('pre','')} causes '   0' to be
suffixed.)

I'll file a ticket to allow /nix to be used, but for now, let's not use
it. I think that if the issues listed are fixed, the package can be approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388768

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202388768%23c36

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to