https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972445 --- Comment #2 from Rafael Jeffman <rjeffman@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Jarsolav, These were the itens I found that should be fixed in this package: - There's are issues with the upstream source regarding missing license files, and the issue was reported. The license file could be included, but as neither GPL or LGPL enforces it (both state that user "should have received" a copy of the license. - The usage of GPL and RSA should have been documented in the spec. - There is a gui application, and no desktop file is provided. - %{_libdir}/*.so should not be used, and libraries should be versioned. More on: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries Also, as Otto pointed out (thank you for that, I didn't caught that), "eyescale-cmake-common" is only a build dependency. I don't think it should be bundled with the package, as it looks more something that should go along 'cmake' rather than with servus. 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [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. [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. [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. [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]: 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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: servus-1.5.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm servus-devel-1.5.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm servus-debuginfo-1.5.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm servus-debugsource-1.5.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm servus-1.5.2-1.fc35.src.rpm servus.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Zeroconf -> Confer servus.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zeroconf -> confer servus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary servusBrowser servus-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation servus.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Zeroconf -> Confer servus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zeroconf -> confer servus.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: servus-debuginfo-1.5.2-1.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/Eyescale/CMake/archive/refs/tags/2018.02.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06ae367f70e34e5e5b27fac2296f7bdf33e36d5c016b1545020239fc49e5dd56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06ae367f70e34e5e5b27fac2296f7bdf33e36d5c016b1545020239fc49e5dd56 https://github.com/HBPVIS/Servus/archive/1.5.2/servus-1.5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b617ae7cccb076ac029bd4ff54cb11bcc55a756f13e12052081ce4d90f2e6d61 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b617ae7cccb076ac029bd4ff54cb11bcc55a756f13e12052081ce4d90f2e6d61 Requires -------- servus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libServus.so.6()(64bit) libServusQt.so.6()(64bit) libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-common.so.3()(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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) servus-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake libServus.so.6()(64bit) libServusQt.so.6()(64bit) pkgconfig servus(x86-64) servus-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): servus-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- servus: bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) libServus.so.6()(64bit) libServusQt.so.6()(64bit) servus servus(x86-64) servus-devel: servus-devel servus-devel(x86-64) servus-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libServus.so.1.6.0-1.5.2-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libServusQt.so.1.6.0-1.5.2-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) servus-debuginfo servus-debuginfo(x86-64) servus-debugsource: servus-debugsource servus-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1972445 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Python, fonts, 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
