https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030862 --- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@xxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/gtk-3.0/settings.ini See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cros-guest-tools See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names [This is right, the package was orphaned before] - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in cros-garcon, cros- notificationd, cros-sommelier, cros-sommelier-config See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units - Can the use of /etc/skel/.config be changed to something more visible, like /etc/skell/cros/.config ? - Some directories created are not owned. this usually means some missing (Build)Requires: - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable is not met. Is this by design or a bug? ===== 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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 153 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/2030862-cros-guest-tools/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/skel/.config/pulse [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /var/lib/polkit-1/localauthority/10-vendor.d, /etc/profile.d, /usr/lib/systemd, /var/lib/polkit-1, /etc/gtk-2.0, /usr/lib/systemd/user, /var/lib/polkit-1/localauthority, /etc/skel/.config, /etc/skel/.config/pulse [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. Might need fixups for directories created but not owned ? [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 143360 bytes in 14 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 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]: 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]: 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 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in cros-sftp [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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Depends on some of the directories created that aren't owned [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cros- systemd-overrides , cros-logging , cros-adapta , cros-garcon , cros- host-fonts , cros-notificationd , cros-pulse-config , cros-sftp , cros-sommelier , cros-sommelier-config , cros-sudo-config , cros-ui- config , cros-wayland [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. No real release by upstream - just git commits [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. no %check but that's okay. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. install command does not use -p, which it could do. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/paul.wouters/2030862-cros-guest- tools/srpm-unpacked/cros-guest-tools.spec See: (this test has no URL) This can be ignored. Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/paul.wouters/2030862-cros-guest- tools/srpm-unpacked/cros-guest-tools.spec See: (this test has no URL) This can be ignored. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/containers/cros-container-guest-tools/+archive/97e0120.tar.gz#/cros-guest-tools-97e0120.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c435df9594e01403401aa80a593c6df6da160524d3d073c9162d2928dc2a2568 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e719d834c695179c889cc88c33c8d0558a3cfcb49f3e889773ca898bc8b7a515 However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- cros-guest-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cros-adapta cros-garcon cros-host-fonts cros-logging cros-notificationd cros-pulse-config cros-sftp cros-sommelier cros-sommelier-config cros-sudo-config cros-systemd-overrides cros-ui-config cros-wayland cros-systemd-overrides (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh systemd cros-logging (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): systemd cros-adapta (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): filesystem gtk-murrine-engine gtk2 gtk2-engines gtk3 qt5-qtstyleplugins cros-garcon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/sh PackageKit ansible mailcap systemd cros-host-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontpackages-filesystem cros-notificationd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh dbus-common cros-pulse-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): alsa-plugins-pulseaudio pulseaudio-utils cros-sftp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh openssh-server cros-sommelier (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(cros-sommelier) gtk2 vim-common xdpyinfo xev xlsatoms xlsclients xlsfonts xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-14-100dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-14-75dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-100dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-75dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-2-100dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-2-75dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-9-100dpi xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-9-75dpi xorg-x11-fonts-Type1 xorg-x11-fonts-cyrillic xorg-x11-fonts-misc xorg-x11-xauth xprop xvinfo xwininfo cros-sommelier-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cros-sommelier cros-sudo-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(cros-sudo-config) sudo cros-ui-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(cros-ui-config) dconf gtk2 gtk3 cros-wayland (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(cros-wayland) systemd-udev Provides -------- cros-guest-tools: cros-guest-tools cros-systemd-overrides: cros-systemd-overrides cros-logging: cros-logging cros-adapta: cros-adapta cros-garcon: application() application(garcon_host_browser.desktop) cros-garcon mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/ftp) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/http) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/https) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/mailto) cros-host-fonts: cros-host-fonts cros-notificationd: cros-notificationd cros-pulse-config: cros-pulse-config cros-sftp: cros-sftp cros-sommelier: config(cros-sommelier) cros-sommelier cros-sommelier-config: cros-sommelier-config cros-sudo-config: config(cros-sudo-config) cros-sudo-config cros-ui-config: config(cros-ui-config) cros-ui-config cros-wayland: config(cros-wayland) cros-wayland Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2030862 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, Haskell, R, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity 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=2030862 _______________________________________________ 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
