https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452 --- Comment #11 from Honggang LI <honli@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 1 Package Review 2 ============== 3 4 Legend: 5 [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated 6 [ ] = Manual review needed 7 8 9 10 ===== MUST items ===== 11 12 C/C++: 13 [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. PASS 14 [ ]: Package contains no static executables. PASS 15 [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a 16 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. 17 [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) 18 [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 19 20 Generic: 21 [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets 22 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging 23 Guidelines. PASS 24 [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 25 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses 26 found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated", 27 "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 11 files have unknown 28 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/1835452-mlxbf- 29 bootctl/licensecheck.txt PASS 30 [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. PASS 31 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. PASS 32 [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. PASS 33 [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. PASS 34 [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. PASS 35 [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. PASS 36 [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package PASS 37 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. PASS 38 [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory 39 names). PASS 40 [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. PASS 41 [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. PASS 42 [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. PASS 43 [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and 44 Provides are present. PASS 45 [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. PASS 46 [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. PASS 47 [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. PASS 48 [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. PASS 49 [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. PASS. It is aarch64 specific package. 50 [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size 51 (~1MB) or number of files. 52 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. PASS 53 [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines PASS 54 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least 55 one supported primary architecture. 56 [x]: Package installs properly. 57 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. 58 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). 59 [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the 60 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the 61 license(s) for the package is included in %license. 62 [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. 63 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. 64 [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. 65 [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 66 [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the 67 beginning of %install. 68 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. 69 [x]: Dist tag is present. 70 [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. 71 [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. 72 [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. 73 [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't 74 work. 75 [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. 76 [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. 77 [x]: Package is not relocatable. 78 [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as 79 provided in the spec URL. 80 [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format 81 %{name}.spec. 82 [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. 83 [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local 84 85 ===== SHOULD items ===== 86 87 Generic: 88 [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate 89 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. PASS 90 [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). PASS 91 [ ]: Package functions as described. PASS 92 [ ]: Latest version is packaged. PASS 93 [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. PASS 94 [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. 95 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments PASS 96 [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream 97 publishes signatures. 98 Note: gpgverify is not used. PASS 99 [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains 100 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. PASS 101 [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. PASS 102 [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed 103 files. PASS 104 [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 105 [x]: Buildroot is not present 106 [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or 107 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) 108 [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. 109 [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. 110 [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file 111 [x]: SourceX is a working URL. 112 [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported 113 architectures. 114 [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. 115 116 ===== EXTRA items ===== 117 118 Generic: 119 [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). 120 Note: No rpmlint messages. 121 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. 122 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). 123 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package 124 is arched. 125 [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. 126 127 128 Rpmlint 129 ------- 130 Checking: mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm 131 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm 132 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm 133 mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-6.fc33.src.rpm 134 mlxbf-bootctl.aarch64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma 135 mlxbf-bootctl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma 136 mlxbf-bootctl.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mlxbf-bootctl-1.1.tar.gz 137 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. 138 139 140 141 142 Rpmlint (debuginfo) 143 ------------------- 144 Checking: mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm 145 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 146 147 148 149 150 151 Rpmlint (installed packages) 152 ---------------------------- 153 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 154 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 155 mlxbf-bootctl.aarch64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma 156 mlxbf-bootctl.aarch64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 157 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. 158 159 160 161 Requires 162 -------- 163 mlxbf-bootctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 164 ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) 165 libc.so.6()(64bit) 166 rtld(GNU_HASH) 167 168 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 169 170 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 171 172 173 174 Provides 175 -------- 176 mlxbf-bootctl: 177 mlxbf-bootctl 178 mlxbf-bootctl(aarch-64) 179 180 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo: 181 debuginfo(build-id) 182 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo 183 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo(aarch-64) 184 185 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource: 186 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource 187 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource(aarch-64) 188 189 190 191 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 192 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1835452 193 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 194 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api 195 Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Ruby, Python, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R, PHP 196 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
