https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763518 Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags| |needinfo?(rebus@xxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #1 from Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks good except the two license issues below. 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 - The upstream site says GPLv2 is the license, but the COPYING file is GPLv3. The spec file says GPLv2+ and GPLv3+, so it's not clear what the correct license is. Can you clarify the breakdown in a comment (or file an issue with upstream if it's unclear to you and include a link to the upstream issue as a comment). ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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/locale/es/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/be/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/tr/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/it/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/et/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/ms/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/pt_BR/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/da/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/vi/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/gl/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/uk/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/ja/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/ga/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/nl/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/zh_TW/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/el/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/lt/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/ru/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/eu/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/hu/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/pt/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/fi/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/sk/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/sl/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/ca/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/de/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/ko/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/nb/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/pl/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/sv/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/bg/LC_TIME, /usr/share/locale/af/LC_TIME [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [ ]: 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 215040 bytes in 12 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]: 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 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 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 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [!]: %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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dc3dd-7.2.646-8.fc32.x86_64.rpm dc3dd-debuginfo-7.2.646-8.fc32.x86_64.rpm dc3dd-debugsource-7.2.646-8.fc32.x86_64.rpm dc3dd-7.2.646-8.fc32.src.rpm dc3dd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcfldd -> deflect dc3dd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcfldd -> deflect 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dc3dd-debuginfo-7.2.646-8.fc32.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). dc3dd-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dc3dd/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> dc3dd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcfldd -> deflect dc3dd.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dc3dd/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> dc3dd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dc3dd/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dc3dd/dc3dd-7.2.646.7z : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d26d5c1eaa413a10dfcdb2525a9fd8135902eb0b0a8f4632529fbebb06430d95 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d26d5c1eaa413a10dfcdb2525a9fd8135902eb0b0a8f4632529fbebb06430d95 Requires -------- dc3dd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dc3dd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dc3dd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dc3dd: dc3dd dc3dd(x86-64) dc3dd-debuginfo: dc3dd-debuginfo dc3dd-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) dc3dd-debugsource: dc3dd-debugsource dc3dd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1763518 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, PHP, Perl, fonts, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
