https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034758 Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #31 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- My comment in the previous review was wrong, now ``` %{_libexecdir}/%{name} ``` needs to be changed to ``` %dir %{_libexecdir}/%{name} %dir %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/bin %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/bin/starter %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/cni ``` to avoid starter-suid from being listed twice, while declaring all directories ownership. And bash completion should be installed in `%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions` as reported by Maxwell. **Please make those two changes before importing the package**, I'm going to set the review APPROVED already. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/.build- id/2c/68e818e228ff80a99a7fda49c0a35a5cd3b048 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - Package uses hardened build flags if required to. Note: suid files: starter-suid and not %global _hardened_build See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_compiler_flags ===== 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* Lawrence Berkeley National Labs BSD variant license", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "Lawrence Berkeley National Labs BSD variant license BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Apache License 2.0", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License". 3851 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/reviews/2034758-apptainer/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]: %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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 30720 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DrDaveD/apptainer/releases/download/v1.0.0-rc.2.2/apptainer-1.0.0-rc.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fba03b8f4123ee0751a49b609e6c6ab9d69c39bc35d00977af8ceed61218d8ed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fba03b8f4123ee0751a49b609e6c6ab9d69c39bc35d00977af8ceed61218d8ed Requires -------- apptainer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/sh config(apptainer) libc.so.6()(64bit) libseccomp.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) squashfs-tools apptainer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- apptainer: apptainer apptainer(x86-64) config(apptainer) singularity singularity-runtime apptainer-debuginfo: apptainer-debuginfo apptainer-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2034758 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Java, Ocaml, Python, Perl 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=2034758 _______________________________________________ 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
