https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/jamesjer/1988517-dr_libs/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Briefly, the top-level Makefile is different in the upstream tarball from the tarball you provided. - While Fedora's LDFLAGS are used to build, Fedora's CFLAGS are not. Since the binaries are not packaged, maybe that doesn't matter. - Should the packages be noarch? ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. See above. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. There have been 2 commits after the one used by this package. [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. [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/jamesjer/1988517-dr_libs/srpm- unpacked/dr_libs.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dr_libs-devel-0-0.1.20210731git61fcf38.fc36.x86_64.rpm dr_flac-devel-0.12.30-0.1.20210731git61fcf38.fc36.x86_64.rpm dr_mp3-devel-0.6.28-0.1.20210731git61fcf38.fc36.x86_64.rpm dr_wav-devel-0.13.1-0.1.20210731git61fcf38.fc36.x86_64.rpm dr_libs-doc-0-0.1.20210731git61fcf38.fc36.noarch.rpm dr_libs-0-0.1.20210731git61fcf38.fc36.src.rpm dr_libs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dr -> rd, Dr, fr dr_libs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dr -> rd, Dr, fr dr_libs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage dr_libs-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-0 dr_libs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr_flac-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-0 dr_flac-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr_mp3-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-0 dr_mp3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr_wav-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-0 dr_wav-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr_libs-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dr -> rd, Dr, fr dr_libs-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dr -> rd, Dr, fr dr_libs-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT-0 dr_libs.src: W: invalid-license MIT-0 dr_libs.src:270: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rpmlint: 2.0.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 5 dr_flac-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr_libs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr_mp3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr_wav-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ================= Source checksums ---------------- https://media.xiph.org/sintel/sintel_trailer-audio.flac : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 171d95acdb59882b4b8fb39cc1463920a859a78d3772bca532059c9ee02d48a6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 171d95acdb59882b4b8fb39cc1463920a859a78d3772bca532059c9ee02d48a6 https://media.xiph.org/sintel/README.txt#/sintel-README.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a929d7a3c4f5056c33187c009165522cb6b036e33103052974fa042545622dcb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a929d7a3c4f5056c33187c009165522cb6b036e33103052974fa042545622dcb Using local file /home/jamesjer/Makefile as upstream file:///home/jamesjer/Makefile : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d8f8842e70495aa8251331853700bfae344fdf0ab92a8a006ff352af30b7669 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d90e76cfbca3719d9d091b8ff5236b460a78f662f6d8f15c4449d2051da03dfc https://github.com/mackron/dr_libs/archive/61fcf380728dc7fc7b781aae058b44055831b3e7/dr_libs-61fcf380728dc7fc7b781aae058b44055831b3e7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cb5298ad9c2396bc9e676b30686b370c723214f3e395a435035fd83429897a6b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb5298ad9c2396bc9e676b30686b370c723214f3e395a435035fd83429897a6b diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- dr_libs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dr_flac-devel(x86-64) dr_flac-static dr_mp3-devel(x86-64) dr_mp3-static dr_wav-devel(x86-64) dr_wav-static dr_flac-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dr_mp3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dr_wav-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dr_libs-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dr_libs-devel: dr_libs-devel dr_libs-devel(x86-64) dr_libs-static dr_flac-devel: dr_flac-devel dr_flac-devel(x86-64) dr_flac-static dr_mp3-devel: dr_mp3-devel dr_mp3-devel(x86-64) dr_mp3-static dr_wav-devel: dr_wav-devel dr_wav-devel(x86-64) dr_wav-static dr_libs-doc: dr_libs-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1988517 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, R, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Ruby, Perl 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
