https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002417 --- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 19496960 bytes in 1740 files. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_documentation > > I'm pretty sure this is because it doesn't recognize -docs as a documentation subpackage. Meh. > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > [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. > > 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. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", > "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU Lesser General > Public License, Version 2.1 GNU General Public License, Version 2 > Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No > copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "*No > copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 Creative > Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "MIT > License BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* > Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", > "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public > License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 > [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version > 2 Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike > 4.0", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", > "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address > (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated > file]", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General > Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", > "*No copyright* [generated file]". 360 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/ngompa/2002417-libcamera/licensecheck.txt > [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. > [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. The libcamera-qcam package needs a desktop file for qcam binary, and probably also an AppStream metainfo file. > [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > libcamera-docs > [x]: 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. > [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [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 > ------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > I'm not sure what's up with this, but I ran rpmlint manually, and the only "real" error was this: libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 Since you're manually forcing this, I think it's probably fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002417 _______________________________________________ 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
