https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920754 dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Looks good now except for one tiny typo: `anl` in line 10 should be a `and`. Package approved, thanks for your work! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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 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: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora- scm/1920754-opendoas/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. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: opendoas (description) [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: 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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Source 3 is not passed to gpgverify. [-]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: opendoas-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm opendoas-debuginfo-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm opendoas-debugsource-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm opendoas-6.8.1-1.fc34.src.rpm opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base opendoas.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD opendoas.x86_64: E: no-binary opendoas.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/doas root 4755 opendoas.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/doas 4755 opendoas-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD opendoas-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD opendoas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doas -> doss, dos, donas opendoas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doas -> doss, dos, donas opendoas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo opendoas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base opendoas.src: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD opendoas.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libopenbsd) opendoas.src:39: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: opendoas-debuginfo-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm opendoas-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base opendoas.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD opendoas.x86_64: E: no-binary opendoas.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/doas root 4755 opendoas.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/doas 4755 opendoas-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD opendoas-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://xn--1xa.duncano.de/duncan.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6bcc28324aa4ec31bf4fb1ac0f86d9dd6871d7d5a0d312a4d23847db1703de9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6bcc28324aa4ec31bf4fb1ac0f86d9dd6871d7d5a0d312a4d23847db1703de9 https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas/releases/download/v6.8.1/opendoas-6.8.1.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 05804bcc900244abc5b44adebc1f454ef6053e35d0a57988f26030a68e7eb38a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05804bcc900244abc5b44adebc1f454ef6053e35d0a57988f26030a68e7eb38a https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas/releases/download/v6.8.1/opendoas-6.8.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fce3f5e3fd3e1287bdc5666abf3f433980b1c08e7381343c33ae3a8697d7c20c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fce3f5e3fd3e1287bdc5666abf3f433980b1c08e7381343c33ae3a8697d7c20c Requires -------- opendoas (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(opendoas) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) opendoas-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): opendoas-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- opendoas: bundled(libopenbsd) config(opendoas) doas opendoas opendoas(x86-64) opendoas-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) opendoas-debuginfo opendoas-debuginfo(x86-64) opendoas-debugsource: opendoas-debugsource opendoas-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1920754 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
