https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532794 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- "this will replace `libcrypt.so*` from glibc" so I assume the following problems will be solved too, right? DEBUG util.py:479: Error: Transaction check error: DEBUG util.py:479: file /usr/include/crypt.h from install of libxcrypt-devel-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64 conflicts with file from package glibc-headers-2.26.9000-37.fc28.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:479: file /lib64/libcrypt.so from install of libxcrypt-devel-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64 conflicts with file from package glibc-devel-2.26.9000-37.fc28.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:479: file /lib64/libcrypt.a conflicts between attempted installs of libxcrypt-static-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64 and glibc-static-2.26.9000-37.fc28.x86_64 Package is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* LGPL", "*No copyright* Public domain", "CDDL (v1.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libxcrypt/review-libxcrypt/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. [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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libxcrypt-static. [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. [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 libxcrypt-static [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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 architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: # binaries. %%define with lazy globbing is used here, %define __spec_install_post %{?__debug_package:%{__debug_install_post}} %{__arch_install_post} %{__os_install_post} %{_bindir}/fipshmac %{buildroot}/%{_lib}/libcrypt.so.%{sov} %{__ln_s} .libcrypt.so.%{sov}.hmac \\%{buildroot}/%{_lib}/.libcrypt.so.%{soc}.hmac %{nil} [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libxcrypt-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64.rpm libxcrypt-devel-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64.rpm libxcrypt-static-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64.rpm libxcrypt-debuginfo-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64.rpm libxcrypt-debugsource-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.x86_64.rpm libxcrypt-4.0.0-0.101.20171109git15447aa.fc28.src.rpm libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bcrypt -> crypt, b crypt libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rn -> RN, Rn, en libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ra -> Ra, ea, ta libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gensalt -> gen salt, gen-salt, gens alt libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwd -> passed, password libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcrypt -> lib crypt, lib-crypt, cryptic libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc's -> glibness's libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlinks -> slinks libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libowcrypt -> Cryptozoic libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setkey -> set key, set-key, Kelsey libxcrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fcrypt -> crypt, f crypt libxcrypt.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libxcrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /lib64/.libcrypt.so.1.1.0.hmac libxcrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /lib64/.libcrypt.so.1.hmac libxcrypt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libxcrypt-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation libxcrypt-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bcrypt -> crypt, b crypt libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rn -> RN, Rn, en libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ra -> Ra, ea, ta libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gensalt -> gen salt, gen-salt, gens alt libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwd -> passed, password libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcrypt -> lib crypt, lib-crypt, cryptic libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc's -> glibness's libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlinks -> slinks libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libowcrypt -> Cryptozoic libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setkey -> set key, set-key, Kelsey libxcrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fcrypt -> crypt, f crypt 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 30 warnings. -- 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
