https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030814 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sgallagh/cockpit-45drives/build/3018089/ Automated Review: This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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 v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/cockpit-file-sharing/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/cockpit [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: cockpit-file-sharing-2.4.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm cockpit-file-sharing-2.4.1-1.fc36.src.rpm cockpit-file-sharing.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A cockpit module to make file sharing with Samba and NFS easier. cockpit-file-sharing.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag cockpit-file-sharing.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/cockpit/file-sharing/branding/branding.svg cockpit-file-sharing.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A cockpit module to make file sharing with Samba and NFS easier. cockpit-file-sharing.src: E: no-changelogname-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/45Drives/cockpit-file-sharing/archive/v2.4.1/cockpit-file-sharing-2.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8df993d916312227e2a56b0f9fb0110ccf0e05ce8a12b410424d3ed2cacf518 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8df993d916312227e2a56b0f9fb0110ccf0e05ce8a12b410424d3ed2cacf518 Requires -------- cockpit-file-sharing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 cockpit-ws nfs-utils python3 samba Provides -------- cockpit-file-sharing: cockpit-file-sharing Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name cockpit-file-sharing --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, R, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, Python, PHP, Ocaml, 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=2030814 _______________________________________________ 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
