https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #22 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Many things fixed since the last review, adding comments for the manual review items and other issues: (In reply to David Cantrell from comment #21) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/dcantrell/notcurses/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ This seems bogus. I think this is a bug in the review tool. > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. It does not. > [ ]: Package contains no static executables. It does not. > [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. The .so files are in notcurses-devel. > Generic: > [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. It is. The project is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. > [ ]: 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 It does. ASL 2.0 is the Fedora short name. > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The main package uses %license to install COPYRIGHT and LICENSE. All subpackages require the main package, so the license files are installed to the system under any subpackage combination. > [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. It does. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. It does not. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. It is. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. They do. Upstream provides a release tarball named %{name}_${version}+dfsg.1.orig.tar.xz to comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This also complies with Fedora packaging policy, so the spec file uses the DFSG source tarball/ > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. It is not a GUI application. > [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package They are. > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. It does not. > [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). It does. > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It is. > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. It does not. > [ ]: 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. Not a rename. > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. They are. > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Yep, totes. > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. systemd not needed. > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. So useful. > [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. It does not 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 133120 bytes in 2 files. Documentation included is small and a subpackage is not necessary. > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines What do you think I'm doing here? > Python: > [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. They do not. > [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. egg is provided in the python3-notcurses package > [ ]: 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. Upstream includes license text. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). They are. > [ ]: Package functions as described. It does. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. It is. > [ ]: 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. Translations unavailable. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. It does. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. Unable to use this now until additional BR available to run the test suite. > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. It does. > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Bad spec filename: /home/dcantrell/notcurses/srpm- > unpacked/notcurses.spec > See: (this test has no URL) This is bogus. I think this is a bug in the fedora-review tool. It did not show up until the DFSG source tarball was used. I think it doesn't know how to tokenize the DFSG basename. > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: notcurses-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-devel-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-static-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm > python3-notcurses-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-debuginfo-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-debugsource-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm > notcurses-1.3.2-2.fc33.src.rpm > notcurses.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.2-1 > ['1.3.2-2.fc33', '1.3.2-2'] Change the Release: back to '1'. You changed it to 2, which fine, but since this will be the initial import to Fedora, no reason to not start at 1. Or an another entry to the %changelog for 1.3.2-2. > notcurses-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation The static package requires the main package which provides the documentation. > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/notcurses/notcurses.py 644 > /usr/bin/python3 Should this be executable? I think fedora-review is picking this up because it has #!/usr/bin/python3 at the top and an if __name__ == "__main__" block. > notcurses.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension > notcurses_1.3.2+dfsg.1.orig.tar.xz Disregard, this is bogus. > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > 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 > 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> > 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: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.2-1 > ['1.3.2-2.fc33', '1.3.2-2'] > 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> > 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> Disregard, this is bogus. I don't know why fedora-review doesn't have network support at this point in its run. But this URL is entirely valid. > python3-notcurses.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/notcurses/notcurses.py 644 > /usr/bin/python3 See above. > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > python3-notcurses: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/_notcurses.abi3.so This again? What was the final plan on this? -- 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
