https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468312
Cristian Le <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #44 from Cristian Le <[email protected]> --- Aha, now I understand what that snapshot.patch was. Please do not use a patch, instead you can use `%forgemeta` macros [1,2] or a manual equivalent (i.e. use a commit hash instead of a version). Anything that follows the snapshot guidelines [3]. Here is a snippet implementation using forgemeta ``` %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/pwsafe/pwsafe %global version0 1.24.0 # Using a more recent snapshot of `master` to pull in various necessary patches until 1.25 is out %global date 20260604 %global commit 1d41f7b %forgemeta Name: passwordsafe Version: %forgeversion Source0: %forgesource0 ... %prep %forgeautosetup -p1 ``` Advantage of `%forgemeta` approach is that you can more easily go in and out of a snapshot and it complies with the snapshot versioning guidelines --- If a patch is not designed to be downstream-only, include a link to their sources. In particular, Patch4 should be written as ``` # fix the CMakeLists.txt compiler options for pugixml 1.15 Patch4: https://github.com/pwsafe/pwsafe/pull/1807.patch ``` (Use `spectool -g -P` to download the patch for srpm building. You will need to delete the local copy of the patch to refresh it. ) --- Change the osboletes line to have a `<` sign [4]. Just use the closest higher bump that is in Fedora pwsafe = 0.20.0 -> pwsafe < 0.20.1 -- Please include links to the discussions of Patch2, Patch3 and pugixml's char vs wchar --- The build log reports ``` *** WARNING: ./usr/src/debug/passwordsafe-1.24.0-1.fc45.x86_64/src/core/Util.cpp is executable but has no shebang, removing executable bit ``` Patch is easy, just a `chmod -x` for those files. --- Package review follows, not everything is actionable, see comments first, will mark them with a `(comment: ...)` Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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]: 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. [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* MIT License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Artistic License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Artistic License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License". 2852 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2468312-passwordsafe/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. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/passwordsafe (comment: it fails for the `doc` sub-package. But that subpackage should `Requires: pwsafe = %version-%release`) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. (comment: it can be renamed to `pwsafe` directly as that is orphaned and maybe retired soon, leaving that for the sponsor or others to chime in) [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. (comment: Provides could also be included, but no strong feelings given how old it is and the comment 3 items above) [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. (comment: Missing note about `hicoloder-icon-theme`, and the Requires relation between `doc` subpackage and main should be reversed. You can use `Suggests: %name-doc` instead) [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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. (comment: snapshot is used for now, should be reverted to version at next opportunity) [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. (comment: more detailed breakdown made previously) [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) (comment: known false-positive, only diff is from %autochangelog) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1310720 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: passwordsafe-1.24.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm passwordsafe-doc-1.24.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm passwordsafe-1.24.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpg0majchw')] checks: 32, packages: 3 passwordsafe.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided pwsafe passwordsafe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwsafe-cli 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: passwordsafe-debuginfo-1.24.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmprcc02xc6')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 3 passwordsafe.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided pwsafe passwordsafe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwsafe-cli 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pwsafe/pwsafe/archive/refs/tags/1.24.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 234f88f7c224c9dcaea5650afca5957fcf3f80ea411d92a34f26468e7ecd0485 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 234f88f7c224c9dcaea5650afca5957fcf3f80ea411d92a34f26468e7ecd0485 https://github.com/zeux/pugixml/archive/v1.15/pugixml-1.15.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b39647064d9e28297a34278bfb897092bf33b7c487906ddfc094c9e8868bddcb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b39647064d9e28297a34278bfb897092bf33b7c487906ddfc094c9e8868bddcb Requires -------- passwordsafe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagic.so.1()(64bit) libqrencode.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_aui-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_aui-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libxerces-c-3.3.so()(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1()(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.0)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.15)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.4)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.5)(64bit) libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.7)(64bit) passwordsafe-doc rtld(GNU_HASH) passwordsafe-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- passwordsafe: application() application(pwsafe.desktop) bundled(pugixml) metainfo() metainfo(org.pwsafe.pwsafe.metainfo.xml) passwordsafe passwordsafe(x86-64) passwordsafe-doc: passwordsafe-doc Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2468312-passwordsafe/srpm/passwordsafe.spec 2026-06-04 09:55:47.885338599 +0200 +++ /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2468312-passwordsafe/srpm-unpacked/passwordsafe.spec 2026-06-03 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global pugixml_version 1.15 @@ -146,3 +156,34 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Jun 03 2026 Carl Byington <[email protected]> - 1.24.0-1 +- Include fixes after the official 1.24.0 release. +- Add context menu to copy the custom field values. +- The report files are now always bom-less utf-8 encoded. +- Text input for custom fields value is now resizeable. +- Add browse + autotype feature. +- Add 1.24.0 changelog entries from upstream. +- Custom fields can now be added to each entry. That is, fields with + user-defined names and values. +- Changing the height of the Add/Edit dialog will cause a vertical + scrollbar to be added. +- In the "Flattened List" view, sorting by time columns (e.g., entry + creation time) now works correctly. +* Tue May 05 2026 Carl Byington <[email protected]> - 1.23-2 +- Convert docs to pdf format. +- Properly tag doc and license files. +- Enable debug packages. +* Tue Sep 29 2015 Rony Shapiro <[email protected]> - 0.97BETA-4 +- Rename package to passwordsafe to avoid conflict with command-line pwsafe +* Thu Oct 24 2013 Johan Vromans <[email protected]> - 0.92BETA-3 +- Additional buildrequires for some platforms. +* Sun Sep 22 2013 Rony Shapiro <[email protected]> - 0.92BETA-2 +- Changes for YubiKey build +* Sun Dec 02 2012 Rony Shapiro <[email protected]> - 0.8BETA-2 +- Streamline rpm build process under PasswordSafe source tree +- Remove unwanted doc files from RPM +* Thu Nov 08 2012 David Dreggors <[email protected]> - 0.8BETA-1 +- Spec file created for Fedora rpm builds +- First rpm build for Fedora 17 + +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2468312 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH [1]: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/forge-srpm-macros/ [2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/span/blob/rawhide/f/span.spec [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots [4]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2468312 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202468312%23c44 -- _______________________________________________ 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
