https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905270 Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/bpfmon/build/1818199/ It fails on armhfp, but only because it ran out of disk space: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andymenderunix/bpfmon/fedora-rawhide-armhfp/01818199-bpfmon/builder-live.log.gz > URL: https://github.com/bbonev/bpfmon/ > Source0: https://github.com/bbonev/bpfmon/releases/download/v%{version}/bpfmon-%{version}.tar.xz > Source1: https://github.com/bbonev/bpfmon/releases/download/v%{version}/bpfmon-%{version}.tar.xz.asc You can reuse URL as %{url} in Source fields here, too. The rest looks okay. Approved. Full review below: 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/ ===== 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 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. [x]: 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", "GNU General Public License (v2.0 or later)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/bpfmon/bpfmon/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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 2.6 starting (python version = 3.8.6)... 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: 2.6 INFO: Mock Version: 2.6 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/bpfmon/bpfmon-debugsource-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/bpfmon/bpfmon-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/bpfmon/bpfmon-debuginfo-2.49-1.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 /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/bpfmon/bpfmon-debugsource-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/bpfmon/bpfmon-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/bpfmon/bpfmon-debuginfo-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: bpfmon-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm bpfmon-debuginfo-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm bpfmon-debugsource-2.49-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm bpfmon-2.49-1.fc32.src.rpm bpfmon.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iptables -> stables, tables bpfmon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpster bpfmon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables, tables bpfmon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iptables -> stables, tables bpfmon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpster bpfmon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables, tables 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/bpfmon/v2.49/debian/upstream/signing-key.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07 https://github.com/bbonev/bpfmon/releases/download/v2.49/bpfmon-2.49.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06f6467854f196b441671c78228247a7deb7309ca7aa3b2859fd46e8a77c4c61 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06f6467854f196b441671c78228247a7deb7309ca7aa3b2859fd46e8a77c4c61 https://github.com/bbonev/bpfmon/releases/download/v2.49/bpfmon-2.49.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c6c703e0667f341ce521d1e092196a46f6f13c53a643cfab218ae3cf339e1473 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6c703e0667f341ce521d1e092196a46f6f13c53a643cfab218ae3cf339e1473 Requires -------- bpfmon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libyascreen.so.0()(64bit) libyascreen.so.0(YASCREEN_1.79)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) bpfmon-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bpfmon-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- bpfmon: bpfmon bpfmon(x86-64) bpfmon-debuginfo: bpfmon-debuginfo bpfmon-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) bpfmon-debugsource: bpfmon-debugsource bpfmon-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
