https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2116217 Jonathan Wright <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail. | |com) CC| |jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wright <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- See comments at the bottom. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unicode strict", "zlib License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "NTP License", "ISC License", "BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License". 247 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2116217-libphidget22/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /lib/udev, /lib/udev/rules.d [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /lib/udev, /lib/udev/rules.d [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: 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 10240 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: [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. [x]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://www.phidgets.com/downloads/phidget22/libraries/linux/libphidget22/libphidget22-1.10.20220530.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a28a9b90157928020f1080529398f947304e8f32ba310cfc9962020a99ae421 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a28a9b90157928020f1080529398f947304e8f32ba310cfc9962020a99ae421 Requires -------- libphidget22 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): avahi-compat-libdns_sd libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) udev libphidget22-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libphidget22(x86-64) libphidget22.so.0()(64bit) libphidget22-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libphidget22-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libphidget22: libphidget libphidget22 libphidget22(x86-64) libphidget22.so.0()(64bit) libphidget22.so.0(phid22_1.0)(64bit) libphidget22-devel: libphidget22-devel libphidget22-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libphidget22) libphidget22-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libphidget22-debuginfo libphidget22-debuginfo(x86-64) libphidget22.so.0.0.0-1.10.20220530-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libphidget22-debugsource: libphidget22-debugsource libphidget22-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2116217-libphidget22/srpm/libphidget22.spec 2022-08-08 17:59:51.647167133 -0500 +++ /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2116217-libphidget22/srpm-unpacked/libphidget22.spec 2022-08-07 20:13:45.000000000 -0500 @@ -16,4 +16,6 @@ BuildRequires: avahi-devel BuildRequires: avahi-compat-libdns_sd-devel +#BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0 +#BuildRequires: jpackage-utils BuildRequires: libusb1-devel BuildRequires: make AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libphidget22-1.10.20220530/configure.ac:44 Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2116217 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Python, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: ------------------------------ The `License` field needs to follow SPDX [1] so it should be "LGPL-3.0-or-later" since this projects license specifically allows later versions. The license field also needs to be expanded to cover the wide varienty of included files. See the output from fedora-review's license check. [6] The license also needs to be included with the sub-packages. --- As this is a C application you need a `BuildRequires: gcc`. [5] --- The URL 301s to https anyway so I'd change http to https. --- You should set the java sub-package to only compile on compatible arches. [3][4] The example PR at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/graphviz/pull-request/9#request_diff might help. --- Under %files you use `%{_includedir}/*` which is forbidden. [2] --- /lib/udev is the wrong place to put udev files. You should the macro `%{_udevrulesdir}` which translates to `/usr/lib/udev/rules.d` [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists [3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_architecture_support [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_JDKs [5] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/#_buildrequires_and_requires [6] https://pastebin.com/NEarrRk3 -- 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=2116217 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
