https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > > Issues: > ======= > - 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. > Note: License file LICENSE-MIT is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text I'm pretty sure this is a misfire from the vendored node modules. > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > Here's the diff report: Only in /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/srpm-unpacked/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz-extract/jowl-2.1.0: dist Only in /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/srpm-unpacked/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz-extract/jowl-2.1.0: .packit.yaml This is probably because you haven't merged your Packit PR and made a release with it yet. > > ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT > License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 1112 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/licensecheck.txt > [-]: 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. > [-]: 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]: 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 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]: 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]: 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. > [-]: 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: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ rpmlint session starts > ============================ > rpmlint: 2.2.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.11/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 > > jowl.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > jowl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jowl > jowl.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1 > ['2.1.0-1.20220918174732552023.pr47.12.gceccec5.fc38', > '2.1.0-1.20220918174732552023.pr47.12.gceccec5'] > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/lib/.eslintrc.js > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules/.bin > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/.package-lock.json > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/color-name/.eslintrc.json > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/color-name/.npmignore > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.dont-break > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.jshintrc > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.npmignore > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.npmrc > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.travis.yml Meh. > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/jowl.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/bin/jowl > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/supports-color/license > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/ansi-styles/license:/usr/lib/ > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/chalk/license:/usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/ > node_modules_prod/has-flag/license > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/each.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/each.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/eachRight.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/eachRight.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entries.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entries.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entriesIn.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entriesIn.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extend.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extend.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extendWith.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extendWith.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/first.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/first.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assocPath.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assoc.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/where.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/conforms.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissocPath.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissoc.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/whereEq.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/matches.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/property.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/path.js:/usr/lib/ > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/prop.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propEq.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathEq.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propOr.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathOr.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/props.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/paths.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/valueOf.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/toJSON.js:/usr/lib/ > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/value.js To fix this, add the following: BuildRequires: fdupes and add "%fdupes %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{name}" at the end of the %install section. > jowl.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules/.bin ../node_modules_prod/.bin Uhhh? > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 32 warnings, 0 badness; has > taken 0.3 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/daxelrod/jowl/archive/v2.1.0/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a63cfb0a5f737887da47fb1bf9251b63355268734ccbaa5a1ae008ce7b6c99de > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 562df6cf0dc2abf946f419cdd7255fc326d00602d58137b14e956d197089514e > diff -r also reports differences > See earlier. > > Requires > -------- > jowl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/node > nodejs > > > > Provides > -------- > jowl: > bundled(nodejs-ansi-styles) > bundled(nodejs-chalk) > bundled(nodejs-color-convert) > bundled(nodejs-color-name) > bundled(nodejs-commander) > bundled(nodejs-console.json) > bundled(nodejs-escape-string-regexp) > bundled(nodejs-has-flag) > bundled(nodejs-json-colorizer) > bundled(nodejs-lodash) > bundled(nodejs-lodash.get) > bundled(nodejs-supports-color) > jowl > npm(jowl) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2127737 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, R, Perl, Python, fonts, > Haskell, PHP > 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=2127737 _______________________________________________ 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
