https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dank@xxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #14 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Comments and questions on items requiring manual review. (In reply to David Cantrell from comment #13) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. No kernel modules. > [ ]: Package contains no static executables. No static executables, but there are static libraries in notcurses-static. > Generic: > [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. The software is licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which is approved by Fedora. The short name is "ASL 2.0" as noted in the spec file License tag. > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No > copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 260 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/dcantrell/notcurses/licensecheck.txt All files lack license boilerplate information, but the entire project says it is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 as noted in the LICENSE file. Copyright information is in the COPYRIGHT file. Upstream is advised to consider adding license information to each source file either as indicated by the Apache License 2.0 or an SPDX identifier. > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The license is installed as /usr/share/licenses/notcurses/LICENSE in the notcurses package. > [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The %build section uses the %cmake, %make_build, and %py3_build macros to pull in applicable compiler flags. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. There are no bundled libraries. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. It is. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. All code and docs are licensed under the Apache License 2.0. The files in data/ are unknown. Need clarification from upstream. > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. There is no desktop content. > [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package They are. > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. It doesn't. > [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). Oh yes, it does. > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It is. > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Only awesomeness. > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. It does. > [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. N/A > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. N/A > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Yep. > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. N/A > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. There is a useful debuginfo package. > [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Correct. > [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 2 files. /usr/share/doc is 136K, do not need a subpackage > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines That's what this review is confirming. > Python: > [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. None are. > [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. There is an egg provided in /usr/lib[64]/pythonX.Y/site-packages/notcurses > [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python It does. > ===== 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. Need clarification on the files in data/. Recommend adding license information to each source and doc file. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). They are. > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > notcurses-static Need to add: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} To the notcurses-static package. > [ ]: Package functions as described. Yep. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. Yep. > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. It does not. > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Not available. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. It does. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. %check is not present due to -DUSE_TESTS=off. Another BuildRequire is necessary to enable tests, which I understand is coming in a later package review. > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. They do. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: notcurses-1.3.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-devel-1.3.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-static-1.3.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm > python3-notcurses-1.3.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-debugsource-1.3.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-1.3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm > notcurses-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation Documentation is in the main notcurses package. The static package needs a requires on the main package. > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: useless-provides python-notcurses > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: useless-provides python38-notcurses I guess the python_provide macro can be dropped? > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/notcurses/notcurses.py 644 > /usr/bin/python3 Make it executable unless it shouldn't be. > 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.utf8" > 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.utf8" > are supported and installed on your system. > perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). > notcurses-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > python3-notcurses.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> I think this is a problem with the environment I ran fedora-review in. These URLs are valid. > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: useless-provides python-notcurses > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: useless-provides python38-notcurses > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/notcurses/notcurses.py 644 > /usr/bin/python3 See above. > notcurses-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. See above, I think this is a bogus warning. > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > python3-notcurses: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/_notcurses.abi3.so Not sure if these should be versioned like regular shared libraries. Check the Fedora packaging guidelines for Python modules. Please see the comments above for the remaining changes needed. -- 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
