https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897115 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The license of the zstd package is "BSD and GPLv2". Shouldn't the license of this package be the same? The LICENSE file says "BSD License" at the top. Now that I look at this, I'm not sure the zstd package has it right either. These licenses are in play (ignoring contrib, which does not seem to be used for the mingw build): - BSD or GPLv2: most files - MIT: lib/dictBuilder/divsufsort.{c,h} I think zstd is wrong to say "BSD *and* GPLv2", because most files have a sentence that reads "You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses." That tells me that it should be "BSD *or* GPLv2". So I think the correct license tag is "(BSD or GPLv2) and MIT". That goes for the zstd package, too. - The Source0 URL is incorrect. It should be: https://github.com/facebook/%{pkgname}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 This is a mingw package, so the usual rules do not apply. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/archive/1.4.5/zstd-1.4.5.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-zstd-1.4.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm mingw64-zstd-1.4.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm mingw-zstd-1.4.5-1.fc34.src.rpm mingw32-zstd.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzstd.dll.a mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/cover.h mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zbuff.h mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zdict.h mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zstd.h mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zstd_errors.h mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzstd.dll.a mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libzstd.pc mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32 mingw64-zstd.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzstd.dll.a mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/cover.h mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zbuff.h mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zdict.h mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zstd.h mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zstd/zstd_errors.h mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzstd.dll.a mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libzstd.pc mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32 mingw-zstd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/archive/1.4.5/zstd-1.4.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 19 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mingw64-zstd.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-zstd.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- mingw32-zstd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll) mingw32(libssp-0.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-zstd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libssp-0.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw32-zstd: mingw32(libzstd.dll) mingw32-zstd mingw64-zstd: mingw64(libzstd.dll) mingw64-zstd Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1897115 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ruby, fonts, Python, Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, Java 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
