https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058 Artem <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Artem <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello. Some issue which MUST fixed: Issues: ======= - 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 license.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: fedora.spec should be pcm.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming 1. Drop this block: %global commit 9c4f43e78a8b6814f7e8385d423cc7258c6fbe0d %global gittag 202101 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global baserelease 1 and switch to releases. 'Source' could like like this: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz 2. Drop 'Group'. It's not used in Fedora anymore. 3. Add 'BR: make'. 4. Remove '%global debug_package %{nil}' and use canonical Fedora build flags for providing useful debuginfo generation. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/ 5. %setup -q -n pcm-%{version} -> %autosetup 6. CFLAGS="%{optflags}" make -j -> %make_build https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make 7. Remove 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in %install. 8. make install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/.. -> %make_install 9. Move license file from %doc to %license: %license license.txt 10. %dir /usr/share/pcm -> %{_datadir}/%{name}/ 11. Add 'README.md' and 'FAQ'md' to %doc. 12. Changelog not complies Fedora format. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs 13. Use consistently name macros in %files: %{_sbindir}/pcm-core -> %{_sbindir}/%{name]-core and such. 14. Rename fedora.spec -> pcm.spec --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 license.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: fedora.spec should be pcm.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== 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 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/fedora- review/1949058-fedora/licensecheck.txt [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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). [!]: 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. [x]: 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. [!]: 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 2 files. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: 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: pcm-202101-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm pcm-202101-1.fc35.src.rpm pcm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tm -> TM, mt, Tm pcm.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-client pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-bw-histogram pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-core pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-daemon pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-iio pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-latency pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-lspci pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-memory pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-msr pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-numa pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-pcicfg pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-pcie pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-power pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-raw pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-sensor pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-sensor-server pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-tsx pcm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tm -> TM, mt, Tm pcm.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog pcm.src:67: W: macro-in-%changelog %files pcm.src:69: W: macro-in-%changelog %files pcm.src:71: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_sbindir} pcm.src:71: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_bindir} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 26 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- pcm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tm -> TM, mt, Tm pcm.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-client pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-bw-histogram pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-core pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-daemon pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-iio pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-latency pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-lspci pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-memory pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-msr pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-numa pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-pcicfg pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-pcie pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-power pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-raw pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-sensor pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-sensor-server pcm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcm-tsx 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 20 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/opcm/pcm/archive/202101/pcm-202101.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a1b2b9f6e7ae797c8a3e1551ce8933017d59b3cc9e7de5bcb37ea14439441c21 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a1b2b9f6e7ae797c8a3e1551ce8933017d59b3cc9e7de5bcb37ea14439441c21 Requires -------- pcm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(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) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- pcm: pcm pcm(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1949058 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, R, Python, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP 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
