https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751 --- Comment #8 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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 20480 bytes in 2 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source1: http://dist.schmore.de/libptytty/libptytty-2.0.tar.gz.sig See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Sources 0 and 1 are not passed to gpgverify. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libptytty-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libptytty-devel-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libptytty-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libptytty-debugsource-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm libptytty-2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pty -> pry, pt, pity libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tty -> try, ttys, atty libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utmp -> ump, utmost libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wtmp -> wimp, wt mp, wt-mp libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lastlog -> last log, last-log, astrology libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utmp -> ump, utmost libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wtmp -> wimp, wt mp, wt-mp libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lastlog -> last log, last-log, astrology libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fork'ing -> forking, forsaking libptytty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart libptytty.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/libptytty.so.0 libptytty.x86_64: W: no-documentation libptytty-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty libptytty-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utmp -> ump, utmost libptytty-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wtmp -> wimp, wt mp, wt-mp libptytty-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lastlog -> last log, last-log, astrology libptytty-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fork'ing -> forking, forsaking libptytty-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart libptytty.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pty -> pry, pt, pity libptytty.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tty -> try, ttys, atty libptytty.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utmp -> ump, utmost libptytty.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wtmp -> wimp, wt mp, wt-mp libptytty.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lastlog -> last log, last-log, astrology libptytty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty libptytty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utmp -> ump, utmost libptytty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wtmp -> wimp, wt mp, wt-mp libptytty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lastlog -> last log, last-log, astrology libptytty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fork'ing -> forking, forsaking libptytty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart libptytty.src: W: invalid-url Source1: http://dist.schmore.de/libptytty/libptytty-2.0.tar.gz.sig <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 30 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libptytty-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://dist.schmorp.de/signing-key.pub.gpg.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d00077fa8b16f489f3355911564de647f468b4e7a8516375a2c0ca2ee32427b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d00077fa8b16f489f3355911564de647f468b4e7a8516375a2c0ca2ee32427b http://dist.schmorp.de/signing-key.pub : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48ef5720d77a870f25737b8f66fe2c1f88a01810013df70cb8155add904288e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48ef5720d77a870f25737b8f66fe2c1f88a01810013df70cb8155add904288e4 http://dist.schmorp.de/libptytty/libptytty-2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8033ed3aadf28759660d4f11f2d7b030acf2a6890cb0f7926fb0cfa6739d31f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8033ed3aadf28759660d4f11f2d7b030acf2a6890cb0f7926fb0cfa6739d31f7 Requires -------- libptytty (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libptytty-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libptytty(x86-64) libptytty.so.0()(64bit) libptytty-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libptytty-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libptytty: libptytty libptytty(x86-64) libptytty.so.0()(64bit) libptytty-devel: libptytty-devel libptytty-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libptytty) libptytty-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libptytty-debuginfo libptytty-debuginfo(x86-64) libptytty.so.0-2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libptytty-debugsource: libptytty-debugsource libptytty-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n libptytty-2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Python, Haskell, R, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity 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=2025751 _______________________________________________ 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
