https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 --- Comment #13 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji build from latest SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52819915 > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 32 > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(mpfr) > %else > BuildRequires: mpfr-devel > %endif Since Fedora 33 is on its way, Fedora 34 is the new Rawhide, I think this if-else can be simplified to: > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(mpfr) I re-ran fedora-review just in case and it found a couple of outstanding points, mostly bundling of "gnulib" and the License tag. The rest looks good: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle Review: yes, this needs to be added to the SPEC file, for instance below the list of BuildRequires. - 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. Note: License file copying.c is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Review: Please, ignore this one. copying.c is not a license file. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/arm-none-eabi-gdb See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Review: correct, since it's an unretirement request. ===== 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]: 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: Tested in Koji. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Expat License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GPL (v2 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3.1)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "NTP License", "zlib/libpng license", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.3)", "GPL (v3 or later) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Public domain", "ISC License GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU General Public License (v3)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "Public domain GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng license". 5211 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/arm-none-eabi-gdb/arm- none-eabi-gdb/licensecheck.txt Review: Quite a bit of extra licenses listed here. Have a look at the main gdb package as an example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdb/blob/master/f/gdb.spec#_42 [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Review: you don't have to go overboard with this, of course. Just mention which modules have which license. I'll attach a licensecheck.txt output for details. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Review. Only gnulib was marked as bundled by the automatic checks. [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]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: Yes, but see above comments. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Review: not provided by upstream. [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: [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: arm-none-eabi-gdb-9.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo-9.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-gdb-debugsource-9.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-gdb-9.2-1.fc32.src.rpm arm-none-eabi-gdb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary arm-none-eabi-run 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo-9.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name arm-none-eabi-gdb (none): E: no installed packages by name arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name arm-none-eabi-gdb-debugsource 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gdb/gdb-9.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 360cd7ae79b776988e89d8f9a01c985d0b1fa21c767a4295e5f88cb49175c555 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 360cd7ae79b776988e89d8f9a01c985d0b1fa21c767a4295e5f88cb49175c555 Requires -------- arm-none-eabi-gdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpfr.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): arm-none-eabi-gdb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- arm-none-eabi-gdb: arm-none-eabi-gdb arm-none-eabi-gdb(x86-64) arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo: arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) arm-none-eabi-gdb-debugsource: arm-none-eabi-gdb-debugsource arm-none-eabi-gdb-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
