https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750823 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text It seems as if the %doc COPYING should be moved to %license COPYING. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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]: 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", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU General Public License (v2) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "ISC License GPL (v3 or later)". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1750823-virt-p2v/licensecheck.txt The over all license is correct. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/virt-p2v(virt-p2v-maker), /usr/share/virt-p2v(virt-p2v-maker) I'm not very clear on what if anything f-r is complaining about here, but I can see no actual problem with the %files section. [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. [-]: 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. It will temporarily conflict with libguestfs, but we intend to correct that soon. [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. Provides/Obsoletes are correct AFAICT. [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. It's a noarch package because it doesn't contain any ELF binaries which run on the host. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. The package is ExclusiveArch: x86-64 because it only works on x86. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 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]: 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]: Package functions as described. Did not test this package, but have tested the upstream package extensively. [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. [-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [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: virt-p2v-1.41.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm virt-p2v-1.41.0-1.fc32.src.rpm virt-p2v.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-tools-c This isn't really a library. virt-p2v.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libguestfs-bash-completion It's replacing part of this package, not the full package, so it doesn't need a Provides. virt-p2v.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion virt-p2v-maker < 1:1.41.5 obsoletes virt-p2v-maker = 1:1.41.0-1.fc32 I believe this is actually a bug, of a sort. The problem is that we have released virt-p2v with a lower version number than the old libguestfs package. virt-p2v.x86_64: E: no-binary virt-p2v.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Correct, because nothing (except a script) runs on the host. virt-p2v.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/virt-p2v/kiwi-config.sh 644 /bin/bash virt-p2v.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/virt-p2v/launch-virt-p2v 644 /bin/bash - These are real bugs. virt-p2v.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/virt-p2v/launch-virt-p2v virt-p2v.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/virt-p2v/p2v.ks.in Also possible bugs. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- virt-p2v.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libguestfs-tools-c Not a bug, see above. virt-p2v.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://libguestfs.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> Hmm - temporary problem? virt-p2v.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libguestfs-bash-completion Not a bug, see above. virt-p2v.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion virt-p2v-maker < 1:1.41.5 obsoletes virt-p2v-maker = 1:1.41.0-1.fc32 Possible bug, see above. virt-p2v.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/virt-p2v/kiwi-config.sh 644 /bin/bash virt-p2v.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/virt-p2v/launch-virt-p2v 644 /bin/bash - virt-p2v.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/virt-p2v/launch-virt-p2v virt-p2v.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/virt-p2v/p2v.ks.in Could be bugs, see above. -- 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 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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
