https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048261 Filip Januš <fjanus@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Filip Januš <fjanus@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 erd_tool.js.LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 75397120 bytes in 1192 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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", "PostgreSQL License", "*No copyright* PostgreSQL License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License [generated file]", "ISC License", "Python License 2.0 Python Software Foundation License 2.0 CNRI Python Open Source GPL Compatible License Agreement GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* Python License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "MIT License Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License bzip2 and libbzip2 License v1.0.6 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause Clear License", "BSD 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "PostgreSQL License MIT License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "The Unlicense", "[generated file]", "zlib License", "GNU General Public License", "MIT License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0". 58252 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/pgadmin4/pgadmin4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps [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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [?]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pgadmin4-langpack-cs , pgadmin4-langpack-de , pgadmin4-langpack-es , pgadmin4-langpack-fr , pgadmin4-langpack-it , pgadmin4-langpack-ja , pgadmin4-langpack-ko , pgadmin4-langpack-pl , pgadmin4-langpack-ru , pgadmin4-langpack-zh [x]: 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. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define tag_ver %(echo %{version} | awk -F. '{print $1"_"$2}'), %define lang_subpkg() %package langpack-%{1}Summary: %{2} language data for %{name}ExclusiveArch: noarchRequires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and langpacks-%{1})%description langpack-%{1}%{2} language data for %{name}.%files langpack-%{1}%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/pgadmin/translations/%{1}/ [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 75499520 bytes in /usr/share pgadmin4-6.4-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm:75499520 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros using compiler directly in spec file (without makefile) is surprising, but after investigating upstream in makes completely sense. -- 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=2048261 _______________________________________________ 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
