https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122395 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |POST CC| |pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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 licensing.rst.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - New packages should use SPDX License identifiers, they are not used here. - Not the latest release is packaged. A reason for that is not documented and does not provide link to upstream issue, where it might request a new release. - src/tests exist in source archive, but no test exist in build. Please try to use some test. If it is not possible, document it in spec file. ===== 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]: 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. [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* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0 GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 150 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2122395-roc- toolkit/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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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: [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. [!]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 14438400 bytes in /usr/share roc- toolkit-doc-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm:14387200 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 6 roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/roc-toolkit-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64 roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-conv-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-recv-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-send-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/roc-toolkit-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64 roc-toolkit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation roc-toolkit-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/roc-toolkit-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64 roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-conv-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-conv-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-recv-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-recv-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-send-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/roc-send-0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' roc-toolkit-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license MPLv2.0 roc-toolkit-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2 roc-toolkit-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license CeCILL-C roc-toolkit-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MPLv2.0 roc-toolkit-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2 roc-toolkit-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license CeCILL-C roc-toolkit-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license MPLv2.0 roc-toolkit-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2 roc-toolkit-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license CeCILL-C roc-toolkit-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license MPLv2.0 roc-toolkit-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2 roc-toolkit-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license CeCILL-C roc-toolkit.x86_64: W: invalid-license MPLv2.0 roc-toolkit.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2 roc-toolkit.x86_64: W: invalid-license CeCILL-C roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MPLv2.0 roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2 roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license CeCILL-C roc-toolkit.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.5-1 ['0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1.fc38', '0.1.5^20220829git863a0227-1'] roc-toolkit-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/roc-toolkit-doc/html/docs/.buildinfo roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz roc-toolkit-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/roc-toolkit-doc/html/doxygen/search/functions_16.js /usr/share/doc/roc-toolkit-doc/html/doxygen/search/all_17.js roc-toolkit-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/roc-toolkit-doc/html/doxygen/search/functions_9.js /usr/share/doc/roc-toolkit-doc/html/doxygen/search/all_9.js roc-toolkit-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/roc-toolkit-doc/html/doxygen/search/functions_a.js /usr/share/doc/roc-toolkit-doc/html/doxygen/search/all_a.js roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/19/eef3f7a4b08e68398044563bc3c8832b1cdc42 ../../../.build-id/19/eef3f7a4b08e68398044563bc3c8832b1cdc42 roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/2a/7db8898812df78635062e6f8e3f5ffa9036e18 ../../../.build-id/2a/7db8898812df78635062e6f8e3f5ffa9036e18 roc-toolkit-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/98/3263e62edc3c02b7bb07ac53c9c721336a2fc2 ../../../.build-id/98/3263e62edc3c02b7bb07ac53c9c721336a2fc2 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 35 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/roc-streaming/roc-toolkit/archive/863a0227b78464c3a56fc0484bec73c891e4b7a8/roc-toolkit-20220829git863a0227.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f3daefff21cd2aece97be9c9646a2fdc39ad415bf192cefddc19b5673e300f72 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f3daefff21cd2aece97be9c9646a2fdc39ad415bf192cefddc19b5673e300f72 Requires -------- roc-toolkit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenfec.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libunwind.so.8()(64bit) libuv.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) roc-toolkit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libroc.so.0.1()(64bit) roc-toolkit(x86-64) roc-toolkit-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenfec.so.1()(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libsox.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libunwind.so.8()(64bit) libuv.so.1()(64bit) roc-toolkit(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) roc-toolkit-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): roc-toolkit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- roc-toolkit: libroc.so.0.1()(64bit) libroc.so.0.1(ROC)(64bit) roc-toolkit roc-toolkit(x86-64) roc-toolkit-devel: roc-toolkit-devel roc-toolkit-devel(x86-64) roc-toolkit-utils: roc-toolkit-utils roc-toolkit-utils(x86-64) roc-toolkit-doc: roc-toolkit-doc roc-toolkit-doc(x86-64) roc-toolkit-debugsource: roc-toolkit-debugsource roc-toolkit-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2122395 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, R, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, 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=2122395 _______________________________________________ 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
