https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025307 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Please add a spec file comment linking the PR corresponding to Patch0: # https://github.com/grom358/hqx/pull/3 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment and another one linking the PR correspoding to Source1: # https://github.com/grom358/hqx/pull/4 (Thanks for sending these upstream.) - Please consider also sending a PR upstream to fix the obsolete FSF postal addresses in the license/copyright statements in the source file headers. You can apply the patch downstream, or not, at your discretion, as long as it doesn’t touch the license file (which does already have the current address). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address - This is fine, and no change is required: rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.a but it might be easier, and save a little compiling time, to do this instead: %configure --disable-static - This is obsolete in Fedora—you need it only on EPEL7—so please remove it unless you are trying to support EPEL7 with the same spec file. %ldconfig_scriptlets - While the base package automatically depends on the -libs subpackage due to the “hqx” executable linking “libhqx.so.1”, you should make this explicit with a fully-versioned arch-specific dependency, just like the one in -libs-devel: Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} This isn’t exactly the situation described in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package, but the same philosophy applies. - As long as you aren’t supporting EPEL7, you can write install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/ install -m 644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 as install -m 644 -p -D %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 but what you’re doing is perfectly fine, and no change is required. ===== 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2025307-hqx/licensecheck.txt [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 (except as noted) [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: [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hqx-libs , hqx-libs-devel Should have fully-versioned dependency from base package on hqx-libs [?]: 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. Patches are already offered upstream; links should be added [-]: 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. Upstream provides no tests. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/grom358/hqx/archive/v1.2/hqx-v1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a44f1745b7fb0321c1d244822d79505df7cf85cfe383ee70b16f5bcd6803396 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a44f1745b7fb0321c1d244822d79505df7cf85cfe383ee70b16f5bcd6803396 Requires -------- hqx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libIL.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libhqx.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hqx-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hqx-libs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config hqx-libs(x86-64) libhqx.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(IL) hqx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hqx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- hqx: hqx hqx(x86-64) hqx-libs: hqx-libs hqx-libs(x86-64) libhqx.so.1()(64bit) hqx-libs-devel: hqx-libs-devel hqx-libs-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(hqx) hqx-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) hqx-debuginfo hqx-debuginfo(x86-64) hqx-debugsource: hqx-debugsource hqx-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025307 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Java, R, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 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: 32, packages: 7 hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64 hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug hqx-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64 hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug hqx-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug hqx-libs-devel.x86_64: E: no-library-dependency-on hqx-libs /usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0 hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation hqx-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64 hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/45/64c93a670f8f823d71734a7f960a1ebf9381a2 ../../../.build-id/45/64c93a670f8f823d71734a7f960a1ebf9381a2 hqx-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/be/5a38babb18b68fc658679d232d730f99700a3c ../../../.build-id/be/5a38babb18b68fc658679d232d730f99700a3c 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.0 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=2025307 _______________________________________________ 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
