https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988840 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Crouse <mail@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji Rawhide Mock Build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80945723 Only issue I could find: - Package name should be updated, it does not comply with the addon package format, `%{parent}-%{child}`. (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_addon_packages) Otherwise, looks good: + Valid license (Boost) + License is specified correctly + Builds & installs correctly + No segfaults when running + fedora-review found no issues + rpmlint only false positives Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License". 616 files have unknown license. [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Note: Does not comply with the addon package format, %{parent}-%{child}. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_addon_packages [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 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]: 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 BoostHttpServer-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. Reviewer's note: No official release from upstream. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (manually) ---------------------------- BoostHttpServer-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.src.rpm =============== rpmlint session starts =============== rpmlint: 2.2.0 BoostHttpServer.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: BoostHttpServer-ctml.patch ===== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness ===== BoostHttpServer-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 BoostHttpServer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary http_server_dynamic BoostHttpServer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary http_server_static ===== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness ===== BoostHttpServer-debuginfo-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/BoostHttpServer-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64 BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/http_server_dynamic-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.debug BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/http_server_static-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.debug BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/BoostHttpServer-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64 BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/http_server_dynamic-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.debug BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/http_server_static-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.debug BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/BoostHttpServer-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64 BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/01/58c46f94d0953f6b911406669ca09cae171b17 ../../../.build-id/01/58c46f94d0953f6b911406669ca09cae171b17 BoostHttpServer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/9e/07d1f90ccedc294ed17fdd8770ad5bb28987a9 ../../../.build-id/9e/07d1f90ccedc294ed17fdd8770ad5bb28987a9 ===== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings, 4 badness ===== BoostHttpServer-debugsource-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 BoostHttpServer-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation ===== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness ===== BoostHttpServer-devel-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.x86_64.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 ===== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness ===== BoostHttpServer-doc-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc36.noarch.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 ===== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness ===== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/SRombauts/BoostHttpServer/archive/4bc36235fb60a0db20ff4b722ff1136acde4651d/BoostHttpServer-4bc36235fb60a0db20ff4b722ff1136acde4651d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 655f92154a10c416b8f94673fc3e73364ba36c523ea29d6dca8f659b77a8f3c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 655f92154a10c416b8f94673fc3e73364ba36c523ea29d6dca8f659b77a8f3c0 Requires -------- BoostHttpServer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_filesystem.so.1.76.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.76.0()(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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) BoostHttpServer-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): BoostHttpServer-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): BoostHttpServer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): BoostHttpServer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- BoostHttpServer: BoostHttpServer BoostHttpServer(x86-64) BoostHttpServer-devel: BoostHttpServer-devel BoostHttpServer-devel(x86-64) BoostHttpServer-static BoostHttpServer-doc: BoostHttpServer-doc BoostHttpServer-debuginfo: BoostHttpServer-debuginfo BoostHttpServer-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) BoostHttpServer-debugsource: BoostHttpServer-debugsource BoostHttpServer-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1988840 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Python, Haskell, R, Ocaml, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=1988840 _______________________________________________ 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
