https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022554 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The package is APPROVED; however, please see the Issues section below, and make sure you fix the ownership of the %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc directory immediately upon unretirement. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Nothing owns %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc. Please change: %files devel-doc %doc %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc/html to %files devel-doc %doc %{_pkgdocdir}-devel-doc or otherwise ensure the devel-doc subpackage owns this directory. - The hardlink invocation did not eliminate the duplicate file warnings from rpmlint, because the files in question had duplicate content but not duplicate mtimes, so nothing was hardlinked. I think that, for packaging purposes, hardlink is in the right here, and it is better to ignore the rpmlint warnings (and optionally remove the call to hardlink as useless) than to add the “-t” option to hardlink. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps Notes: ====== - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ (OK as previously discussed) - Dist tag is present. (OK—rpmautospec) - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plotmm See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names (OK since the review is for unretirement) - Other rpmlint messages are either bogus (there are a lot of these) or previously discussed in this review. ===== 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]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 189 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/licensecheck.txt All files with licenses other than LGPLv2 belong to the build system and do not contribute to the License of the binary RPMs. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel- doc [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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 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: [x]: 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 plotmm- devel , plotmm-examples [x]: 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.15 starting (python version = 3.10.0, NVR = mock-2.15-1.fc35)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.15 INFO: Mock Version: 2.15 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debugsource-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-doc-0.1.2-2.fc36.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/ --releasever 36 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debugsource-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-examples-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-devel-doc-0.1.2-2.fc36.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/results/plotmm-debuginfo-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://download.sourceforge.net/plotmm/plotmm-0.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 896bb729eb9cad5f3188d72304789dd7a86fdae66020ac0632fe3bc66abe9653 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 896bb729eb9cad5f3188d72304789dd7a86fdae66020ac0632fe3bc66abe9653 Requires -------- plotmm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) 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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) plotmm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(gtkmm-2.4) plotmm(aarch-64) plotmm-devel-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): plotmm-devel plotmm-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) 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) libgdkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libgtkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) plotmm(aarch-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) plotmm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): plotmm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- plotmm: libplotmm.so.0()(64bit) plotmm plotmm(aarch-64) plotmm-devel: pkgconfig(plotmm) plotmm-devel plotmm-devel(aarch-64) plotmm-devel-doc: plotmm-devel-doc plotmm-examples: plotmm-examples plotmm-examples(aarch-64) plotmm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libplotmm.so.0.0.0-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug()(64bit) plotmm-debuginfo plotmm-debuginfo(aarch-64) plotmm-debugsource: plotmm-debugsource plotmm-debugsource(aarch-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/srpm/plotmm.spec 2021-11-25 22:11:31.396505161 -0500 +++ /home/reviewer/2022554-plotmm/srpm-unpacked/plotmm.spec 2021-11-25 18:01:59.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: plotmm Version: 0.1.2 @@ -97,3 +106,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Thu Nov 25 2021 Nils Philippsen <nils@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.1.2-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Thu Nov 11 2021 Nils Philippsen <nils@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.1.2-1 +- Revert "Orphaned for 6+ weeks" Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2022554 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, Haskell, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ 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: 8 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-curves-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-simple-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm.src: W: strange-permission plotmm.spec 600 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64 plotmm.aarch64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-curves-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/plotmm-simple-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64.debug plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: self-obsoletion plotmm-devel < 0.1.2-35 obsoletes plotmm-devel = 0.1.2-2.fc36 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided plotmm-devel plotmm-examples.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-curves plotmm-examples.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotmm-simple plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-debugsource.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-examples.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: no-documentation plotmm-devel.aarch64: W: missing-dependency-on plotmm*/plotmm-libs/libplotmm* = 0.1.2 plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc36.aarch64 plotmm.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libplotmm.so.0.0.0 libplotmm.so.0.0.0 plotmm.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/plotmm/COPYING plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_error_curve__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__coll__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__coll__graph.map plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale__inherit__graph.map /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale__inherit__graph.map plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_h_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.dot /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.dot plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__inherit__graph.md5 /usr/share/doc/plotmm-devel-doc/html/class_plot_m_m_1_1_v_scale_labels__coll__graph.md5 plotmm-devel-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency plotmm-devel plotmm-debuginfo.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/e6/b3aa522142df43ff2657a6d42925d98aa8645f ../../../.build-id/e6/b3aa522142df43ff2657a6d42925d98aa8645f plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/30/cfe7a860b9465c52306f95fbe2634b123c8e54 ../../../.build-id/30/cfe7a860b9465c52306f95fbe2634b123c8e54 plotmm-examples-debuginfo.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7d/201e173d2d062c1525f6b3ad6f0b9be4c16b62 ../../../.build-id/7d/201e173d2d062c1525f6b3ad6f0b9be4c16b62 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 28 warnings, 9 badness; has taken 9.8 s -- 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=2022554 _______________________________________________ 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
