https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476608 --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git- fedora/ubridge/1476608-ubridge/licensecheck.txt I think the package should be licensed under GPLv3+ (according to comments in the sources, I wasn't able to find any other source stating that it should be under GPLv3 only. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Package bundles 'iniparser' and part of the 'lxc' (netlink code). Could you unbundle it? Unbundling 'iniparser' shouldn't be hard. But I am not sure about the 'lxc'. In case it's not easy to unbundle the 'lxc', it will require the 'bundled' keyword. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See bundled libraries above. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. There are two spurious whitespaces after 'BuildRequires: libpcap-devel' and after 'BuildRequires: libcap' [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See problems above. And the package uses capabilities, so I think it should be hardened, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE [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]: 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 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ubridge- debuginfo False positives [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. This is minor problem, but I think it should use 'cp -p' in the Makefile. Well the install time will probably match the compile time in this case, but it's generally better to has there explicitly set the compile time timestamp. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: ubridge-0.9.12-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ubridge-debuginfo-0.9.12-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ubridge-0.9.12-1.fc25.src.rpm ubridge.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ubridge 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ubridge-debuginfo-0.9.12-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ubridge.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ubridge 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- ubridge-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ubridge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ubridge-debuginfo: ubridge-debuginfo ubridge-debuginfo(x86-64) ubridge: ubridge ubridge(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/GNS3/ubridge/archive/v0.9.12/ubridge-0.9.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 44b8584dad54e342ef2f1d47a6483dfb445bd911f7b07e2235645034b5ee5532 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44b8584dad54e342ef2f1d47a6483dfb445bd911f7b07e2235645034b5ee5532 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1476608 Buildroot used: fedora-25-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 -- 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
