https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1973980 Arthur Bols <arthur@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |arthur@xxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Arthur Bols <arthur@xxxxxxxx> --- Note: This is a preliminary (unofficial) review! Welcome Edd! I'm not a packager, but like to help out. Please remember that this is a preliminary (unofficial) review. I may have overlooked things or drawn wrong conclusions. Let me know if that is the case! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Statically Linking Executables This package was originally added in 2014, maybe it is now possible to build it with dynamic linking? According to this commit, it seems to be possible: https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use/commit/0003739b52e0bcefa574ed6dbc5dc7cf78da3cb4 - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ I don't think this is necessary because clang-devel is required. - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python2.7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ The scripts actually support python3. There are commits mentioning fixes. I've also rebuild it with python3-devel, which worked fine. - The license file LICENSE.TXT is not included. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - `/usr/bin/env python` must not be used in shebang lines or as a dependency of a package. The following files need to be changed: /usr/bin/fix_includes.py /usr/bin/iwyu_tool.py Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_multiple_python_runtimes ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 491 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/Documents/rpm/iwyu/1973980-iwyu/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Package is ExclusiveArch [!]: 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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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: [-]: 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. Not tested [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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6113280 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: iwyu-0.16-0.16.fc35.x86_64.rpm iwyu-debuginfo-0.16-0.16.fc35.x86_64.rpm iwyu-debugsource-0.16-0.16.fc35.x86_64.rpm iwyu-0.16-0.16.fc35.src.rpm iwyu.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps iwyu.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.16-1 ['0.16-0.16.fc35', '0.16-0.16'] iwyu.x86_64: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/bin/fix_includes.py /usr/bin/env python iwyu.x86_64: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/bin/iwyu_tool.py /usr/bin/env python iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fix_includes iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fix_includes.py iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwyu iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwyu_tool iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwyu_tool.py iwyu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: iwyu-debuginfo-0.16-0.16.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use/archive/refs/tags/0.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 313e92b4fe38f99a0bbae3ba16c5eb2c54b821b6263e7745e1dd4b4eca08d948 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 313e92b4fe38f99a0bbae3ba16c5eb2c54b821b6263e7745e1dd4b4eca08d948 Requires -------- iwyu (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env libLLVM-12.so()(64bit) libLLVM-12.so(LLVM_12)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclang-cpp.so.12()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) iwyu-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): iwyu-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- iwyu: include-what-you-use include-what-you-use(x86-64) iwyu iwyu(x86-64) iwyu-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) iwyu-debuginfo iwyu-debuginfo(x86-64) iwyu-debugsource: iwyu-debugsource iwyu-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973980 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Python 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
