https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1954842 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai | |l.com) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This is very close! I have a quibble in the license handling, and suggestions for running the tests. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios, you need to document the breakdown of licenses. Additionally, the main/overall license is actually (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and not GPLv2+. The License field could look like: # The entire source is (GPLv2 or GPLv3) except src/jackplay.c, which is # GPLv2+, and src/resample.c, which is BSD. License: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and GPLv2+ and BSD - The tests are pretty minimal, but you can and should run them (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites). Add: BuildRequires: valgrind and %check result="$(./tests/test-wrapper.sh)" if echo "${result}" | grep -Ev ': (ok$|0 errors)' >/dev/null then exit 1 fi (It would be nice if upstream adjusted test_wrapper.sh to have a nonzero exit code on Valgrind errors, but this is not currently the case, and the above is arguably easier than patching it.) Now it turns out that there are some problems. I have submitted PRs to fix most of them upstream; you could apply these as patches. You should add the PR URLs in spec file comments to justify the patches. https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/pull/74 https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/pull/75 There is still a leak in the sndfile-spectrogram test; I would have liked to fix that too, but I haven’t been able to find the problem in a brief examination. https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/issues/76 If that were fixed, you could change if echo "${result}" | grep -Ev ': (ok$|0 errors)' >/dev/null to if echo "${result}" | grep -Ev ': ok$' >/dev/null ===== 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. [!]: 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 General Public License, Version 2", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Expat License [generated file]", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1954842-sndfile- tools/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 389120 bytes in 7 files. Documentation is not “large.” A -doc subpackage is not required. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as otherwise noted) [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]: 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). [?]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: sndfile-tools-1.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sndfile-tools-debuginfo-1.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sndfile-tools-debugsource-1.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm sndfile-tools-1.5-1.fc35.src.rpm sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsndfile -> landfill sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackplay -> jack play, jack-play, playback sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spectrogram -> spectrometer sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sndfile-waveform sndfile-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsndfile -> landfill sndfile-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackplay -> jack play, jack-play, playback sndfile-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample sndfile-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spectrogram -> spectrometer 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sndfile-tools-debuginfo-1.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsndfile -> landfill sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackplay -> jack play, jack-play, playback sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spectrogram -> spectrometer sndfile-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sndfile-waveform 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/releases/download/1.5/sndfile-tools-1.5.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 009b0f50a952ea501f95bb6b15292f81b319fe4534f95ca6c89d48ae296df3b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 009b0f50a952ea501f95bb6b15292f81b319fe4534f95ca6c89d48ae296df3b4 Requires -------- sndfile-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0()(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0(libsamplerate.so.0.0)(64bit) libsndfile.so.1()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sndfile-tools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sndfile-tools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sndfile-tools: sndfile-tools sndfile-tools(x86-64) sndfile-tools-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) sndfile-tools-debuginfo sndfile-tools-debuginfo(x86-64) sndfile-tools-debugsource: sndfile-tools-debugsource sndfile-tools-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1954842 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, Ruby, Python, Ocaml, Java, Perl, R, PHP, SugarActivity 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
