https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121250 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/diskus-0.7.0/CHANGELOG.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Rpm identifies 4 files that are listed twice: CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE-APACHE, LICENSE_MIT, and README.md. See the end of build.log. The issue is that %files devel has this: %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT %doc %{crate_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md %{crate_instdir}/ That final %{crate_instdir}/ implicitly includes every file inside the directory, leading to the duplicate warnings. Here is one way to avoid the duplication: %files devel %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT %doc %{crate_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md %dir %{crate_instdir}/ %{crate_instdir}/.cargo-checksum.json %{crate_instdir}/Cargo.toml %{crate_instdir}/doc/ %{crate_instdir}/src/ %{crate_instdir}/tests/ - The man page (diskus.1) is installed in the wrong package and the wrong place. Move it from the devel subpackage to the diskus package, and put it in %{_mandir}/man1. ===== MUST items ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License Apache License 2.0". 14 files have unknown license. [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. [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. [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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: 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) This is due to the use of rpmautospec, and can be ignored. [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 ------- diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/diskus-0.7.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug rust-diskus.src: W: strange-permission rust-diskus.spec 600 diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/diskus-0.7.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug diskus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diskus diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation diskus.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/89/9263db00523cc7172070642ab5117c2f7b2694 ../../../.build-id/89/9263db00523cc7172070642ab5117c2f7b2694 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- diskus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diskus rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 diskus.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/diskus/0.7.0/download#/diskus-0.7.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 53d9d378e8d78b3d5a8c45dfe9757d7dd8efeae9c1662526c543d0d406a7b67c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53d9d378e8d78b3d5a8c45dfe9757d7dd8efeae9c1662526c543d0d406a7b67c Requires -------- diskus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-diskus-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(atty/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(atty/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(clap/color) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/color) < 3.0.0~) (crate(clap/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(clap/suggestions) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/suggestions) < 3.0.0~) (crate(clap/wrap_help) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/wrap_help) < 3.0.0~) (crate(crossbeam-channel/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(crossbeam-channel/default) < 0.6.0~) (crate(humansize/default) >= 1.1.0 with crate(humansize/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(num-format/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(num-format/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(num_cpus/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(num_cpus/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rayon/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(rayon/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-diskus+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(diskus) rust-diskus-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- diskus: diskus diskus(x86-64) rust-diskus-devel: crate(diskus) rust-diskus-devel rust-diskus+default-devel: crate(diskus/default) rust-diskus+default-devel rust-diskus-debugsource: rust-diskus-debugsource rust-diskus-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jamesjer/2121250-rust-diskus/srpm/rust-diskus.spec 2022-08-27 09:52:23.963011971 -0600 +++ /home/jamesjer/2121250-rust-diskus/srpm-unpacked/rust-diskus.spec 2022-08-24 18:18:21.000000000 -0600 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 22 %bcond_without check @@ -82,3 +91,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Thu Aug 25 2022 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> 0.7.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121250 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, Ruby, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, 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=2121250 _______________________________________________ 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
