https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013077 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the updated submission! The links started working again at some point. I have a few further recommendations, but the package is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - You may remove %license LICENSE from the base package, since it depends on the -libs subpackage, which contains the license file. No change is required for approval. - I recommend replacing %{_bindir}/* with an explicit list of binaries. There is now a rule about this for Python packages (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_explicit_lists), but not a general one. Still, I think the justification is sound: The most common mistakes this rule prevents are: […] • upstream adding commands in %{_bindir}/* – you should always check such changes for conflicts […] and keep the list of such files explicit and auditable. Since there is no rule about this for general packages, this recommendation does not block approval. - The command-line tools pcc and prterun lack man pages. These are desired but not mandatory. Since other tools in the package do have man pages, perhaps upstream could be convinced to add them. ===== 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. OK: /usr/lib64/prte/mca_plm_tm.so is not in the ld path, but in a private subdirectory of %{_libdir}. [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: "Unknown or generated", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 860 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2013077-prrte/20211031/2013077-prrte/licensecheck.txt The unnecessary “BSD (4 clause)”/“BSD with advertising” source is removed by overwriting it in %prep, so the license “BSD” is correct. All other licenses mentioned here belong to build system files and do not contribute to the license of the binary RPMs. [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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 prrte- libs , prrte-devel [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. [-]: 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: [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: prrte-2.0.0-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm prrte-libs-2.0.0-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm prrte-devel-2.0.0-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm prrte-debuginfo-2.0.0-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm prrte-debugsource-2.0.0-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm prrte-2.0.0-2.fc36.src.rpm prrte.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpmix -> opening prrte.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcc prrte.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary prterun prrte-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation prrte-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation prrte.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openpmix -> opening prrte.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prte -> rte, prate, pert prrte.src: W: strange-permission prrte.spec 660 prrte.src: W: strange-permission prte-2.0.0.tar.bz2 660 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: prrte-libs-debuginfo-2.0.0-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm prrte-debuginfo-2.0.0-2.fc36.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- prrte-libs: /usr/lib64/prte/mca_plm_tm.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/openpmix/prrte/releases/download/v2.0.0/prte-2.0.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9f4abc0b1410e0fa74ed7b00cfea496aa06172e12433c6f2864d11b534becc25 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f4abc0b1410e0fa74ed7b00cfea496aa06172e12433c6f2864d11b534becc25 Requires -------- prrte (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libevent_core-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libhwloc.so.15()(64bit) libpmix.so.2()(64bit) libprrte.so.2()(64bit) prrte-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) prrte-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(prrte-libs) libc.so.6()(64bit) libevent_core-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libevent_pthreads-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libhwloc.so.15()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpmix.so.2()(64bit) libprrte.so.2()(64bit) libtorque.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) prrte-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libprrte.so.2()(64bit) prrte-libs(x86-64) prrte-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): prrte-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- prrte: prrte prrte(x86-64) prrte-libs: config(prrte-libs) libprrte.so.2()(64bit) prrte-libs prrte-libs(x86-64) prrte-devel: prrte-devel prrte-devel(x86-64) prrte-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) prrte-debuginfo prrte-debuginfo(x86-64) prrte-debugsource: prrte-debugsource prrte-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2013077 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, R, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2013077 _______________________________________________ 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
