https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091 --- Comment #2 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53166967 It fails on armv7hl and i686. Please, have a look at the logs. > License: GPLv2 licensecheck found a file with the MIT license. If it's not a mistake, that should be included in the License field with a comment above mentioning that only this file has a different license. Expat License ------------- jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py > BuildRequires: autoconf > BuildRequires: automake > BuildRequires: python3-gobject-devel > BuildRequires: python3-cairo-devel > BuildRequires: python3-devel > BuildRequires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel > BuildRequires: glib2-devel > Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit > Requires: python3-gobject > Requires: python3 > Requires: python3-cairo Python dependencies should be declared following the format "python3dist(foo)". > %changelog > * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer <erich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > - New package for Fedora %changelog entries should contain the version and release like so: > * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer <erich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 13-1 There is extra stuff covered in the main review body: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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: are these internal to the package? [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 [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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Expat License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/jack-mixer/jack- mixer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps Review: jack-mixer should have a Requires on hicolor-icon-theme [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Review: mentioned before. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: issues mentioned above. [x]: Package installs properly. [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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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 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: It does on x86_64 [-]: 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. Review: fails on 2 architectures mentioned before. [-]: %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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debugsource-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.src.rpm jack-mixer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades, fakers, waders jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/jack_mixer/nsmclient.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mix_box jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer.py jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades, fakers, waders jack-mixer.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages/* 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debugsource 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- jack-mixer: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jack-mixer/jack_mixer/archive/release-13/jack-mixer-13.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b Requires -------- jack-mixer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 jack-audio-connection-kit libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3 python3-cairo python3-gobject rtld(GNU_HASH) jack-mixer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jack-mixer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jack-mixer: application() application(jack_mixer.desktop) jack-mixer jack-mixer(x86-64) libtool(/usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la) jack-mixer-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jack-mixer-debuginfo jack-mixer-debuginfo(x86-64) jack-mixer-debugsource: jack-mixer-debugsource jack-mixer-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
