https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992878 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I found nothing that would block approving the package; however, please see my suggestions in the Issues section. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - At ~700kB in 8 files, I would probably split out a separate -doc package. However, the guidelines suggest ~1MB or a large number of files as a rule of thumb, so no change is required for approval. - Consider invoking pdflatex with “-interaction=nonstopmode” (do not try to get interactive user input if an error occurs) or “-interaction=batchmode” (same, but also produce much less console output). - Consider running the tests as: %make_build check This would allow running tests in parallel in general (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make), although in this case there is a single test script and it won’t make any difference. However, it keeps things consistent and does no harm. - Please fix mixed tabs and spaces in the spec file: gp2c.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) - The URLs can be rewritten from http:// to https:// and still work; so please do so. ===== 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 PackagingThe package is approved 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "[generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "MIT License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 169 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1992878-gp2c/licensecheck.txt Note that src/parse.c and src/parse.h are the usual Bison special case; they mention GPLv3 but can be treated as GPLv2+ here due to the special exception added to their license. Files with MIT or FSFUL/FSFULLR license belong to the build scripts and do not contribute to the package license. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 706560 bytes in 8 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. (based on tests passing) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: gp2c-0.0.12-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm gp2c-debuginfo-0.0.12-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm gp2c-debugsource-0.0.12-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm gp2c-0.0.12-1.fc35.src.rpm gp2c.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gp2c-debuginfo-0.0.12-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/pub/pari/GP2C/gp2c-0.0.12.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 38ec482252cc70334fa6474aad4b901131ffd8d8da537719c2af7109d57c395c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 38ec482252cc70334fa6474aad4b901131ffd8d8da537719c2af7109d57c395c http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/pub/pari/GP2C/gp2c-0.0.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ee9ff63979670408d8c293902ce7ff6a825145f0e7e7c6323764733ef1b9310d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ee9ff63979670408d8c293902ce7ff6a825145f0e7e7c6323764733ef1b9310d Requires -------- gp2c (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh gcc ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) pari-devel(aarch-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) gp2c-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gp2c-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gp2c: gp2c gp2c(aarch-64) gp2c-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gp2c-debuginfo gp2c-debuginfo(aarch-64) gp2c-debugsource: gp2c-debugsource gp2c-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1992878 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, fonts 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
