https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991150 --- Comment #2 from José Ignacio Tornos Martínez <jtornosm@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fedora-review tool output + manual checks and extra notes Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed, [Mx] = Manual review pass, [M!] = Manual review fail, [M-] = Manual not applicable Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [Mx]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Package includes /usr/share/licenses/rustcat/LICENSE (MIT License) [Mx]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1991150-rust-rustcat/licensecheck.txt $ cat 1991150-rust-rustcat/licensecheck.txt MIT License ----------- rustcat-1.0.1/LICENSE Unknown or generated -------------------- rustcat-1.0.1/.cargo_vcs_info.json rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/Ai/banner.ai rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/Ai/rustcat-icon.ai rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/arch.png rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/banner.png rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/cargo.png rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/easy-revshell.gif rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/easy.png rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/history-ex.gif rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/kali.png rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/others.png rustcat-1.0.1/.github/assets/usage-ex.gif rustcat-1.0.1/.github/workflows/rust.yml rustcat-1.0.1/Cargo.lock rustcat-1.0.1/Cargo.toml rustcat-1.0.1/Cargo.toml.orig rustcat-1.0.1/README.md rustcat-1.0.1/install.sh rustcat-1.0.1/src/main.rs All files are under the MIT license. [M-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: no current subpackage combination. [Mx]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Normal $cargo_build is called and no extra compiler flag is necessary to compile. [M-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: the package does not contain any library. [Mx]: Changelog in prescribed format. Note: %autochangelog is used [Mx]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Note: manual check of git and package files. [M-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Note: it is a command-line tool. [M-]: Development files must be in a -devel package Note: there is no development file. [Mx]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Note: binary tool can be executed without %doc [Mx]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: No hard-coded directory is found. [Mx]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Note: package comlies to the Rust Package Naming (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_package_naming) [Mx]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: the package can be installed on fedora35 with no problem and the tool can be correctly executed. Then, the package can also be uninstalled on fedora35 with no problem. [Mx]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. Note: package content obeys FHS. [M-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Note: The package is not a renmae of another package. [Mx]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: no corrections are necessary [Mx]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Note: spec file has been read and understood as American English. [M-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. Note: systemd files are not necessary for this tool. [Mx]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Note: rustcat-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm (binary with symbols) is also correctly generated [Mx]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: ExcludeArch tag is not included [Mx]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [Mx]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: package complies to the Rust Packaging Guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/) [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: [Mx]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Note: source package does not include license text as a separate file, but it is included into the binary package from upstream. [Mx]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Note: Nothing is extrange [M-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rustcat [Mx]: Package functions as described. Note: After package installation, tool behave as it is commented. [M!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: date of rustcat-1.0.1.crate is Aug 7 2021, but there are newer modifications in github. [Mx]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Note: Package includes /usr/share/licenses/rustcat/LICENSE from upstream (MIT License). [Mx]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used, upstream is not publising signatures [Mx]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Note: not supporting Non-English languages (command-line tool) [M!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: %check is present but it is disabled. [Mx]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Note: Manual check [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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 (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rustcat/1.0.1/download#/rustcat-1.0.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a820830f94d483193234a5974f5b986f1eb4b36577852db9e5e26ad9eb5ee32c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a820830f94d483193234a5974f5b986f1eb4b36577852db9e5e26ad9eb5ee32c Requires -------- rustcat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(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)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-rustcat-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rustcat: rustcat rustcat(x86-64) rust-rustcat-debugsource: rust-rustcat-debugsource rust-rustcat-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1991150 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, C/C++, Java, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP, 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=1991150 _______________________________________________ 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
