https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005808 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Has the SIP license been determined to be equivalent to BSD? It looks different to my untrained eyes. In particular, isn't clause #4 a usage restriction? 4. Licensee may not use SIP to generate Python bindings for any C or C++ library for which bindings are already provided by Riverbank. Some of the file headers indicate that either GPLv2 or GPLv3 can be used instead of the SIP license; e.g. pyqtbuild/__init__py. It is not clear to me if that applies to the project as a whole, or just the indicated files. If the former, then LICENSE-GPL2 and LICENSE-GPL3 should be included in %license. Furthermore, pyqtbuild/bundle/qt_wheel_distinfo/LICENSE suggests that some Qt code is included, which is under an LGPLv3 or GPLv3 license. The only files I see with a BSD license are in doc/html/_static. - The Requires include /usr/bin/python3. But that should be the python3 in mingw64-/ming32-python3 instead, right? - The Provides include DLLs that look like they should be private: mingw64(concrt140.dll) mingw64(libcrypto-1_1-x64.dll) mingw64(libcrypto-1_1.dll) mingw64(libeay32.dll) mingw64(libssl-1_1-x64.dll) mingw64(libssl-1_1.dll) mingw64(msvcp140.dll) mingw64(msvcp140_1.dll) mingw64(msvcp140_2.dll) mingw64(ssleay32.dll) mingw64(vcruntime140.dll) mingw64(vcruntime140_1.dll) Should those be exluded? (They are included in the Requires, too.) ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. See above. [!]: 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", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 86 files have unknown license. See above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). See above. [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. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-python3-PyQt-builder-1.10.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm mingw64-python3-PyQt-builder-1.10.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm mingw-python-PyQt-builder-1.10.3-1.fc36.src.rpm mingw32-python3-PyQt-builder.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-python3-PyQt-builder.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32 mingw64-python3-PyQt-builder.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-PyQt-builder.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 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: 2 mingw32-python3-PyQt-builder.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-PyQt-builder.noarch: W: no-documentation ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ================= Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyQt-builder/PyQt-builder-1.10.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6ade47445b7d8c08eb96e91ebda5f8b3494b3e7a9da2be343b9d0704419cb5c7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6ade47445b7d8c08eb96e91ebda5f8b3494b3e7a9da2be343b9d0704419cb5c7 Requires -------- mingw32-python3-PyQt-builder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 mingw32(advapi32.dll) mingw32(bcrypt.dll) mingw32(gdi32.dll) mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libcrypto-1_1-x64.dll) mingw32(libcrypto-1_1.dll) mingw32(libeay32.dll) mingw32(msvcp140.dll) mingw32(user32.dll) mingw32(vcruntime140.dll) mingw32(vcruntime140_1.dll) mingw32(ws2_32.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-python3 mingw32-sip mingw64-python3-PyQt-builder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 mingw64(advapi32.dll) mingw64(bcrypt.dll) mingw64(gdi32.dll) mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libcrypto-1_1-x64.dll) mingw64(libcrypto-1_1.dll) mingw64(libeay32.dll) mingw64(msvcp140.dll) mingw64(user32.dll) mingw64(vcruntime140.dll) mingw64(vcruntime140_1.dll) mingw64(ws2_32.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-python3 mingw64-sip Provides -------- mingw32-python3-PyQt-builder: mingw32(concrt140.dll) mingw32(libcrypto-1_1-x64.dll) mingw32(libcrypto-1_1.dll) mingw32(libeay32.dll) mingw32(libssl-1_1-x64.dll) mingw32(libssl-1_1.dll) mingw32(msvcp140.dll) mingw32(msvcp140_1.dll) mingw32(msvcp140_2.dll) mingw32(ssleay32.dll) mingw32(vcruntime140.dll) mingw32(vcruntime140_1.dll) mingw32-python3-PyQt-builder mingw64-python3-PyQt-builder: mingw64(concrt140.dll) mingw64(libcrypto-1_1-x64.dll) mingw64(libcrypto-1_1.dll) mingw64(libeay32.dll) mingw64(libssl-1_1-x64.dll) mingw64(libssl-1_1.dll) mingw64(msvcp140.dll) mingw64(msvcp140_1.dll) mingw64(msvcp140_2.dll) mingw64(ssleay32.dll) mingw64(vcruntime140.dll) mingw64(vcruntime140_1.dll) mingw64-python3-PyQt-builder Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2005808 -m f36-build-side-46113 Buildroot used: f36-build-side-46113-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ruby, fonts, SugarActivity 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005808 _______________________________________________ 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
