https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106611 --- Comment #4 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Unofficial Review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/passt/2106611-passt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/selinux/packages/passt [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/selinux/packages, /usr/share/selinux, /usr/share/selinux/packages/passt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 61440 bytes in 2 files. [?]: 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in passt- selinux [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [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]: 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://passt.top/passt/snapshot/passt-HEAD.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3adf86bbac914edf760d74f0f0c4decb6e24fa030b c972a0417af7345dbf3230 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3adf86bbac914edf760d74f0f0c4decb6e24fa030b c972a0417af7345dbf3230 Requires -------- passt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) passt-selinux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh passt policycoreutils passt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): passt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- passt: passt passt(x86-64) passt-selinux: passt-selinux passt-selinux(x86-64) passt-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) passt-debuginfo passt-debuginfo(x86-64) passt-debugsource: passt-debugsource passt-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2106611 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Java, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Consider packaging demo.sh with the documentation as it is a useful getting started example b) Can any of the tests run without direct network access? If so they should be used. c) {{{ git_dir_changelog }}} does not appear in https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbrivio/passt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04600401-passt/passt.spec d) The README.md file has many scripts that would not work in the terminal. Maybe these should be removed? Generating an HTML file for use on a webpage from a markdown file would improve maintainability. e) Packaging specific commits is reasonable, though specifying releases or tagging some commits as releases would also help with maintainability and knowing when to update, especially if updates will also be done by people who are not upstream developers f) The files passt-HEAD/contrib/kata-containers/0001-virtcontainers-agent-Add-passt-networking-model-and-.patch passt-HEAD/contrib/podman/0001-libpod-Add-pasta-networking-mode.patch contain Apache 2.0 licenses. Is it worth packaging these? g) Should header files be in a devel package? h) It may be helpful to explain the mixed licensing policy -- 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=2106611 _______________________________________________ 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
