https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113075 --- Comment #8 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the updates. 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "FSF All Permissive License", "Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0 GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/basez/2113075-basez/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [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 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. [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. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: Source 1 is not passed to gpgverify. [x]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- http://www.quarkline.net/basez//download/GPG-KEY : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5023ed12e3fd7e8393c171669cb921069ef11db15f683aaa0e191cea9225cbfb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5023ed12e3fd7e8393c171669cb921069ef11db15f683aaa0e191cea9225cbfb http://www.quarkline.net/basez//download/basez-1.6.2.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca60e558a2ebfb47fe2063ea380ee958f8b8be65ef7d7bb0320586b6878575a7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca60e558a2ebfb47fe2063ea380ee958f8b8be65ef7d7bb0320586b6878575a7 http://www.quarkline.net/basez//download/README : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eca6a59c53abc1402c3aa7a07bd431638dee87280147a1c024edacd6021e61e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eca6a59c53abc1402c3aa7a07bd431638dee87280147a1c024edacd6021e61e7 http://www.quarkline.net/basez//download/basez-1.6.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2a9f821488791c2763ef0120c75c43dc83dd16567b7c416f30331889fd598937 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2a9f821488791c2763ef0120c75c43dc83dd16567b7c416f30331889fd598937 Requires -------- basez (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) basez-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): basez-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- basez: basez basez(x86-64) basez-debuginfo: basez-debuginfo basez-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) basez-debugsource: basez-debugsource basez-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2113075 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Perl, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH $ rpmlint basez-1.6.2-2.fc37.src.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 basez.spec:37: E: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name} basez.spec:38: E: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep cp -a ChangeLog %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/ basez.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later basez.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-3.0-US basez.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 1.6 s ========= $ rpmlint basez-1.6.2-2.fc37.x86_64.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 basez.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later basez.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-3.0-US basez.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause ========= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 12.1 s ========= $ rpmlint basez-debuginfo-1.6.2-2.fc37.x86_64.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 basez-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/basez-1.6.2-2.fc37.x86_64.debug basez-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/basez-1.6.2-2.fc37.x86_64.debug basez-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation basez-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later basez-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-3.0-US basez-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause basez-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/b8/0284d50b79cde51e1efd9bf5fa9d3764d45bce ../../../.build-id/b8/0284d50b79cde51e1efd9bf5fa9d3764d45bce ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s ========= $ rpmlint basez-debugsource-1.6.2-2.fc37.x86_64.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 basez-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation basez-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later basez-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-3.0-US basez-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ========= Comments: a) Update last line of changelog 1.6.2-2 to 1.6.2-1 b) It may be helpful to also add a copy of the FSFAP license in the changelog to the licenses directory. c) Not sure why getting license identifiers errors, they seem to match https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ and https://spdx.org/licenses/ d) Are the lines mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name} cp -a ChangeLog %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/ install -p %{SOURCE1} -t %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ required? What happens if you add %doc README ChangeLog e) Are the lines # sent this patch to upstream. patch built for 1.6.2. Patch0: add_disable_hex_opt.patch still required? f) Seemed to build with most of these changes https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/basez/build/4717951/ g) Probably with above can approve - h) For my own knowledge, why use 2%{?dist} in the release field rather than 1%{?dist} - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ -- 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=2113075 _______________________________________________ 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
