https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006685 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - Shouldn't the license be "GPLv2+"? I see the "any later version" phrase in the individual Pascal files. - The LICENSE file contains an address for the FSF that has been out of date for 16 years. Please ask upstream to refresh the text of that file from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. - I don't see any Pascal-specific packaging guidelines, so I'm not sure what the build flags should be. I have a question about the use of "-gw", though. That generates DWARF-2 debuginfo. Fedora's toolchain works with at least DWARF-4, and I think I saw some messages not too long ago about migrating to DWARF-5. Shouldn't this package use either "-gw3" or "-gw4" to build? - Since this package installs a graphical application with a desktop file, please consider adding an AppData file as well: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ - As rpmlint points out, the icon installed in the 512x512 directory is actually 480x480. ===== MUST items ===== 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 General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU General Public License", "MIT License". 6151 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2006685-pasdoc/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. [-]: 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 20480 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pasdoc- gui , pasdoc-tools [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- ================================================ 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: 4 pasdoc-gui.x86_64: E: wrong-icon-size /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps/pasdoc-gui.png expected: 512x512 actual: 480x480 pasdoc.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/pasdoc pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_data pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_string pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/pascal_pre_proc pasdoc.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/pasdoc pasdoc-gui.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/pasdoc-gui pasdoc-tools.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_data pasdoc-tools.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_string pasdoc-tools.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/pascal_pre_proc pasdoc-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pasdoc-gui pasdoc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/pasdoc/LICENSE pasdoc-gui.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/pasdoc-gui/LICENSE pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/pasdoc-tools/LICENSE ================= 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 6 warnings, 8 badness; has taken 0.4 s ================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- ================================================ 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: 4 pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/pasdoc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64 pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pasdoc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pasdoc-gui-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/file_to_pascal_data-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/file_to_pascal_string-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pascal_pre_proc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/pasdoc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64 pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pasdoc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/file_to_pascal_data-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/file_to_pascal_string-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pascal_pre_proc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pasdoc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pasdoc-gui-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/file_to_pascal_data-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/file_to_pascal_string-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pascal_pre_proc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation pasdoc-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation pasdoc-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/pasdoc-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64 pasdoc-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pasdoc-gui-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pasdoc-gui-0.16.0-3.fc36.x86_64.debug' pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz pasdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/b4/e9961388bd35ecf2ef0013b233624841614d3b ../../../.build-id/b4/e9961388bd35ecf2ef0013b233624841614d3b pasdoc-gui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/88/8deb2025cf2b3ceb5c4170b0d1f366772dccd5 ../../../.build-id/88/8deb2025cf2b3ceb5c4170b0d1f366772dccd5 pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/34/952059f94b630ec5fb62a570087d96043a0d59 ../../../.build-id/34/952059f94b630ec5fb62a570087d96043a0d59 pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/53/088210ee093f7e70894005daa65d9c6622ceb0 ../../../.build-id/53/088210ee093f7e70894005daa65d9c6622ceb0 pasdoc-tools-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/6d/4a283b56c86909ff203342f317989acbef731b ../../../.build-id/6d/4a283b56c86909ff203342f317989acbef731b ================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 22 warnings, 7 badness; has taken 2.4 s ================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ================================================ 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: 3 pasdoc-gui.x86_64: E: wrong-icon-size /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps/pasdoc-gui.png expected: 512x512 actual: 480x480 pasdoc-gui.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/pasdoc-gui /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 pasdoc.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/pasdoc pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_data pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_string pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/pascal_pre_proc pasdoc.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/pasdoc pasdoc-gui.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/pasdoc-gui pasdoc-tools.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_data pasdoc-tools.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/file_to_pascal_string pasdoc-tools.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/pascal_pre_proc pasdoc-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pasdoc-gui pasdoc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/pasdoc/LICENSE pasdoc-gui.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/pasdoc-gui/LICENSE pasdoc-tools.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/pasdoc-tools/LICENSE ================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 7 warnings, 8 badness; has taken 0.8 s ================= Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pasdoc/pasdoc/archive/v0.16.0/pasdoc-0.16.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 46f850254a67888ce0fe1f67e5022cf1c2a1acac73ad6dc29f85fcfd6ebe7ec8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 46f850254a67888ce0fe1f67e5022cf1c2a1acac73ad6dc29f85fcfd6ebe7ec8 Requires -------- pasdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pasdoc-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libX11.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) pasdoc-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pasdoc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pasdoc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pasdoc: pasdoc pasdoc(x86-64) pasdoc-gui: application() application(pasdoc-gui.desktop) pasdoc-gui pasdoc-gui(x86-64) pasdoc-tools: pasdoc-tools pasdoc-tools(x86-64) pasdoc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pasdoc-debuginfo pasdoc-debuginfo(x86-64) pasdoc-debugsource: pasdoc-debugsource pasdoc-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2006685 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, Ruby, C/C++, R, Java, PHP 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=2006685 _______________________________________________ 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
