https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2057302 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 11069440 bytes in 102 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation - build.log has: Client platform: Linux GUI support: QT not found, disabled native BT support: Bluez not found, disabled Jansson library: system library not found, using local library Lua library: system library not found, using local library Python3 library: Python3 not found, disabled Readline library: enabled Whereami library: system library not found, using local library Lua SWIG: wrapper found Is it worth enabling GUI support, native bt support and python3 support? Can you try and use system library versions of jansson ( BuildRequire: jansson-devel ) Lua ( BuildRequire: lua-devel ), and Whereami (BuildRequires: whereami). - I think the correct lincese tag here is not 'GPL-3.0' but 'GPLv3+' - you should own /usr/share/proxmark3 directory. either a %dir in files or remove the /* at the end so it includes the directory. - Why the: %global debug_package %{nil} %define __strip /bin/true ? - Is it worth running the tests in %check? If they don't need internet it might be worth enabling them. ===== 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: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [?]: 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 v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License", "MIT License GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 1039 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kevin/2057302-proxmark3/licensecheck.txt [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/proxmark3 [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/udev, /usr/share/proxmark3, /etc/udev/rules.d [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: 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). [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. [x]: 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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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: [x]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define __strip /bin/true [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. ===== 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 52899840 bytes in /usr/share proxmark3-4.14831.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm:52899840 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/s00se/proxmark3/archive/refs/tags/v4.14831.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dbb1c4a17269ab176fa5807b67f3a3ea35c4bfd397cef35840ebc8cf6612bce5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dbb1c4a17269ab176fa5807b67f3a3ea35c4bfd397cef35840ebc8cf6612bce5 Requires -------- proxmark3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python3 bzip2-libs libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) readline rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- proxmark3: proxmark3 proxmark3(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2057302 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, Python, Haskell, fonts, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml 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=2057302 _______________________________________________ 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
