https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104533 Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |gotmax@e.email Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> --- I ran this against an EPEL 7 mock chroot, as this package will only be built there. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated == Issues == - [!] You need to include a license breakdown comment over the License field. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. You can probably just copy ``` This package, the EXT2 filesystem utilities, are made available under the GNU Public License version 2, with the exception of the lib/ext2fs and lib/e2p libraries, which are made available under the GNU Library General Public License Version 2, the lib/uuid library which is made available under a BSD-style license and the lib/et and lib/ss libraries which are made available under an MIT-style license. Please see lib/uuid/COPYING for more details for the license for the files comprising the libuuid library, and the source file headers of the libet and libss libraries for more information. ``` from the NOTICE file - [!]: NOTICE mentions other license files. Shouldn't those also be installed? - [!]: Please remove `Requires: fuse-libs`. This is handled by the dependency generator. - [!]: You need to escape the %make_build macro in the changelog by adding an extra %. Ctrl+F for NOTE to find my other interspersed comments. ===== 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. [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", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "NTP License BSD 3-Clause License GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "NTP License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* NTP License", "GNU General Public License GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "ISC License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 1.0". 1935 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git- repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2104533-fuse2fs/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. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. NOTE: Handled by %configure [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. NOTE: You probably should reset the Release to 1 when you import the package to Fedora. It's fine to keep bumping it for the review if that helps you keep track of the changes. [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. NOTE: See the comment about the fuse-libs Requires. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). NOTE: See the note above [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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 ------- fuse2fs.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/sbin/fuse2fs NOTE: This seems specific to EL 7. This error doesn't show up when running rpmlint against the version that's built for rawhide. Not sure if EL 7's compiler flags have -fPIE fuse2fs.spec:45: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_build NOTE: You need to escape the %make_build macro in the changelog by adding an extra %. fuse2fs.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency fuse-libs NOTE: See above comments Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tytso/e2fsprogs/archive/v1.46.5/fuse2fs-1.46.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0286b718da1491c65c4e51453d33a25d5dad29b0964f915e627c363b4c11cb92 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0286b718da1491c65c4e51453d33a25d5dad29b0964f915e627c363b4c11cb92 Requires -------- fuse2fs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fuse-libs libc.so.6()(64bit) libfuse.so.2()(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.5)(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6)(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.8)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) fuse2fs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fuse2fs: fuse2fs fuse2fs(x86-64) fuse2fs-debuginfo: fuse2fs-debuginfo fuse2fs-debuginfo(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2104533 -m epel-7-x86_64 Buildroot used: centos+epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Ocaml, R, Python, Perl, Haskell, Java, 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=2104533 _______________________________________________ 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
