https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483014 Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shim-12-0.1.fc27/Cryptlib/Base.h shim- unsigned-x64-debugsource : [A lot of this, this is just the tool not understanding split debuginfo yet] - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /vol1/review-shim- unsigned-x64/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I assume this is github messing with us, the md5sum appears to be different every time. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. It's a bootloader, they're gonna be static. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated". 678 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /vol1/review-shim- unsigned-x64/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/shim(shim- unsigned), /usr/src/debug(filesystem) This will be fixed once the package is imported, can't be fixed yet. [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. Again, not yet, which is fine. [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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in shim- unsigned-ia32 , shim-unsigned-x64-debuginfo , shim-unsigned- ia32-debuginfo , shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4792320 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Checking: shim-unsigned-x64-12-0.1.fc27.x86_64.rpm shim-unsigned-ia32-12-0.1.fc27.x86_64.rpm shim-unsigned-x64-debuginfo-12-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm shim-unsigned-ia32-debuginfo-12-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource-12-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm shim-unsigned-x64-12-0.1.fc27.src.rpm shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: E: no-binary shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: W: no-documentation shim-unsigned-ia32.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-ia32.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-ia32.x86_64: W: no-documentation shim-unsigned-x64-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources shim-unsigned-ia32-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource.noarch: W: no-documentation shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/shim-12-0.1.fc27/Cryptlib/Base.h shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/src/debug/shim-12-0.1.fc27/Cryptlib/Base.h shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/shim-12-0.1.fc27/Cryptlib/Cipher/CryptAesNull.c [ snip, lots of the above ] shim-unsigned-ia32.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-ia32.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-ia32.x86_64: W: no-documentation shim-unsigned-ia32-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, boot-loader, boatload shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: E: no-binary shim-unsigned-x64.x86_64: W: no-documentation shim-unsigned-x64-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 683 warnings. All harmless. Requires -------- shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): shim-unsigned-ia32 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): shim-unsigned-ia32-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource shim-unsigned-x64 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): shim-unsigned-x64-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource Provides -------- shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource: shim-unsigned-x64-debugsource shim-unsigned-ia32: bundled(openssl) shim-unsigned-ia32 shim-unsigned-ia32(x86-64) shim-unsigned-ia32-debuginfo: shim-unsigned-ia32-debuginfo shim-unsigned-x64: bundled(openssl) shim-unsigned-x64 shim-unsigned-x64(x86-64) shim-unsigned-x64-debuginfo: shim-unsigned-x64-debuginfo Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rhboot/shim/releases/download/12/shim-12.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 418c231194adc32407adfa478b6939d6c9cdfe54925e76e00791d71c3126541d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d9364983ef91ab09dc231c8d979b413cfa36d4744830ba59f5d3e52b616048b0 diff -r also reports differences Again, this is just github afaict. Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n shim-unsigned-x64 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 The extra debuginfo magic is a bit beyond me but seems to work as expected, so, looks good to me. -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
