https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Not a blocker, please next time make the files in sync. In the review it's maybe better to bump the release and reupload the spec and srpm. - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in stalld See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets Probably false positive. - Package is not compiled with the distribution CFLAGS/LDFLAGS Please add CFLAGS/LDFLAGS variables to the Makefile. ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git- fedora/stalld/1872867-stalld/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/stalld-1.0 See next comment for possible solution. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/stalld-1.0 [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. This is serious, please add CFLAGS/LDFLAGS to the Makefile [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 [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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. Details will follow in the next comment [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. Not tested [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: stalld-1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm stalld-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm stalld-debugsource-1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm stalld-1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm stalld.src: W: file-size-mismatch stalld-1.0.tar.xz = 20048, https://jcwillia.fedorapeople.org/stalld-1.0.tar.xz = 9856 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: stalld-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name stalld (none): E: no installed packages by name stalld-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name stalld-debugsource 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://jcwillia.fedorapeople.org/stalld-1.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ae7226b414ee43a60d6cacc5ee3546504d8d5aa5cbfada43b161a38a82f1ba48 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ed619fe366b6c66d29fd666089af9ad991ed9d92a377745ebe1345a13329311 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- stalld (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(stalld) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd stalld-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): stalld-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- stalld: config(stalld) stalld stalld(x86-64) stalld-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) stalld-debuginfo stalld-debuginfo(x86-64) stalld-debugsource: stalld-debugsource stalld-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1872867 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Perl, Java, Python, Ocaml, R 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
