https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868849 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > # both kenlm and libime are released under LGPL2+ > License: LGPLv2+ and MIT and BSD Worth mentioning which parts are licensed under MIT and BSD if possible. > %files > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt > %doc README.md > %{_bindir}/libime_history > %{_bindir}/libime_pinyindict > %{_bindir}/libime_prediction > %{_bindir}/libime_slm_build_binary > %{_bindir}/libime_tabledict A minor detail, but you can replace the "libime" repetitions with "%{name}". > %{_libdir}/libIMEPinyin.so.0* > %{_libdir}/libIMETable.so.0* > %{_datadir}/libime The package should own the "%{_datadir}/libime" directory, correct? In that case a trailing slash is needed: %{_datadir}/libime/ or better yet: %{_datadir}/%{name}/ The full review matrix: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ Review: Not sure about this one, since packages build cleanly in COPR. - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions Review: This seems to be caused by a bug in systemd-nspawn mentioned here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Packages build natively on F32 have the correct permissions set. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages Review: Built by submitter in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yanqiyu/fcitx5/build/1612196/ [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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 377 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr- build-1612196/review-libime/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Review: rpmlint got confused by the versioning scheme: 0-0.2.20200811gita108d15.s20200811git96d303c Please, ignore if rpmlint's warning is bogus. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: 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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. Review: Tested via COPR by the submitter. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint Not sure why this fails, since the package builds in COPR cleanly. [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 49899520 bytes in /usr/share libime-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm:49899520 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines Review: A separate libime-data subpackage would be useful. If it's needed by the main libime package and the libime-devel subpackage, both need the following: Requires: %{name}-data = %{version}-%{release} [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.4 starting (python version = 3.8.5)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.4 INFO: Mock Version: 2.4 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-debuginfo-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-debugsource-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-devel-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-debuginfo-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-debugsource-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-devel-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/libime/copr-build-1612196/libime-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: libime-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm libime-devel-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm libime-debuginfo-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm libime-debugsource-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.x86_64.rpm libime-0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34.src.rpm libime.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.2.20200811gita108d15.s20200811git96d303c ['0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c.fc34', '0-0.2.gita108d15.sgit96d303c'] libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/libime_history 555 libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/libime_pinyindict 555 libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/libime_prediction 555 libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/libime_slm_build_binary 555 libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/libime_tabledict 555 libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libIMECore.so.0.1 555 libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libIMEPinyin.so.0.1 555 libime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libIMETable.so.0.1 555 libime.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libime_history libime.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libime_pinyindict libime.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libime_prediction libime.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libime_slm_build_binary libime.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libime_tabledict libime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://download.fcitx-im.org/data/table.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6196053c724125e3ae3d8bd6b2f9172d0c83b65b0d410d3cde63b7a8d6ab87b7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6196053c724125e3ae3d8bd6b2f9172d0c83b65b0d410d3cde63b7a8d6ab87b7 https://download.fcitx-im.org/data/dict.utf8-20200715.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 23c36cd4df6de17f66bf2dfc453ec6c773641a479b6020c9e787552489c9c7d2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23c36cd4df6de17f66bf2dfc453ec6c773641a479b6020c9e787552489c9c7d2 https://download.fcitx-im.org/data/lm_sc.3gm.arpa-20140820.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 751bab7c55ea93a2cedfb0fbb7eb09f67d4da9c2c55496e5f31eb8580f1d1e2f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 751bab7c55ea93a2cedfb0fbb7eb09f67d4da9c2c55496e5f31eb8580f1d1e2f https://github.com/kpu/kenlm/archive/96d303cfb1a0c21b8f060dbad640d7ab301c019a/kenlm-96d303cfb1a0c21b8f060dbad640d7ab301c019a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ba140d7f8e36fcc1ce03252f413b4a854e7dc313eedf964767a025c0eb2ad674 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba140d7f8e36fcc1ce03252f413b4a854e7dc313eedf964767a025c0eb2ad674 https://github.com/fcitx/libime/archive/a108d15b06f0885f2fcc95d035614665392bc83b/libime-a108d15b06f0885f2fcc95d035614665392bc83b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1facc12e079e64dc5841ce0fb84fb56effcfd1ffa8517a025a967752985cb04e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1facc12e079e64dc5841ce0fb84fb56effcfd1ffa8517a025a967752985cb04e Requires -------- libime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit) libIMECore.so.0()(64bit) libIMEPinyin.so.0()(64bit) libIMETable.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libime-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libIMECore.so.0()(64bit) libIMEPinyin.so.0()(64bit) libIMETable.so.0()(64bit) libime(x86-64) libime-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libime-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libime: libIMECore.so.0()(64bit) libIMEPinyin.so.0()(64bit) libIMETable.so.0()(64bit) libime libime(x86-64) libime-devel: cmake(LibIMECore) cmake(LibIMEPinyin) cmake(LibIMETable) cmake(libimecore) cmake(libimepinyin) cmake(libimetable) libime-devel libime-devel(x86-64) libime-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libime-debuginfo libime-debuginfo(x86-64) libime-debugsource: libime-debugsource libime-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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
