https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868851 --- Comment #2 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Looks good overall, but there are some problems with owned directories. > Also, could you check whether it builds on all of the main Fedora archs in > COPR? I'm having some trouble with my fork of your COPR project. rawhide (f34) chroot is buggy after the f33 branching, this time I have a koji scratch build for target f34. (since fcitx5 is successfully built in rawhide and f33) If you want to test in f32, there is a side tag you can try: f32-build-side-28264 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49950821 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49951528 > > 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: local problems with fedora-review and mock, it seems. > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_file_permissions > Review: Possible systemd-nspawn bug in COPR chroots? > Locally built RPMs have correct permissions (755) > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: 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. > Review: unversioned SO file rime.so is for internal use only. Ignore > error. > [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > [-]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages > Review: packages pulled from COPR. Building works. > [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". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-rime/fcitx5-rime/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/fcitx5, /usr/share/fcitx5/addon, > /usr/share/fcitx5, /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod > Review: package should have a Requires line for fcitx5-data > which owns the fcitx5 data dir? added: Requires: fcitx5-data should fix > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fcitx5/addon, > /usr/lib64/fcitx5, /usr/share/fcitx5, /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod > Review: as above. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: 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 > [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: 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. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > Review: Not quite. See earlier comments about owned directories. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > Review: The text in Chinese should be fine, right? > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: 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 > Review: Yes, but see comments about owned directories. > [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 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. > Review: builds in COPR. > [-]: 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. > [ ]: 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]: 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 > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > > > 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/fcitx5-rime/fcitx5-rime-0-0.2.gite4fc600.fc34. > x86_64.rpm > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-rime/fcitx5-rime-debuginfo-0-0.2. > gite4fc600.fc34.x86_64.rpm > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-rime/fcitx5-rime-debugsource-0-0.2. > gite4fc600.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/fcitx5-rime/fcitx5-rime-0-0.2.gite4fc600.fc34. > x86_64.rpm > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-rime/fcitx5-rime-debuginfo-0-0.2. > gite4fc600.fc34.x86_64.rpm > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-rime/fcitx5-rime-debugsource-0-0.2. > gite4fc600.fc34.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts > > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: fcitx5-rime-0-0.2.gite4fc600.fc34.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-rime-debuginfo-0-0.2.gite4fc600.fc34.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-rime-debugsource-0-0.2.gite4fc600.fc34.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-rime-0-0.2.gite4fc600.fc34.src.rpm > fcitx5-rime.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog > 0-0.2.20200811gite4fc600 ['0-0.2.gite4fc600.fc34', '0-0.2.gite4fc600'] > fcitx5-rime.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib64/fcitx5/rime.so 555 > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. > > > > > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > fcitx5-rime: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/rime.so > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx5-rime/archive/ > e4fc60043e8c608d344b7f7b3e83116a81d89318/fcitx5-rime- > e4fc60043e8c608d344b7f7b3e83116a81d89318.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > c552e93b5b62a0ba4a6612e0d05ed8234c4ce192e0b3344afc38344215ff8ee0 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > c552e93b5b62a0ba4a6612e0d05ed8234c4ce192e0b3344afc38344215ff8ee0 > > > Requires > -------- > fcitx5-rime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > hicolor-icon-theme > libFcitx5Config.so.6()(64bit) > libFcitx5Core.so.6()(64bit) > libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(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) > librime.so.1()(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) > > fcitx5-rime-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > fcitx5-rime-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > fcitx5-rime: > fcitx5-rime > fcitx5-rime(x86-64) > > fcitx5-rime-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > fcitx5-rime-debuginfo > fcitx5-rime-debuginfo(x86-64) > > fcitx5-rime-debugsource: > fcitx5-rime-debugsource > fcitx5-rime-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
