https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123242 --- Comment #1 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) MIT Open Group variant", "NTP License", "NTP License MIT Open Group variant", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License". 396 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gwyn/2123242-xephem/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. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps [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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xephem- data [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [!]: %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]: 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) [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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 4 xephem-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/xephem-4.1.0^20220822139b2ea-1.fc38.x86_64.debug xephem-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation xephem-data.noarch: W: no-documentation xephem-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation xephem-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/xephem-4.1.0^20220822139b2ea-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/xephem-4.1.0^20220822139b2ea-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' xephem-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/xephem-4.1.0^20220822139b2ea-1.fc38.x86_64/GUI/xephem/indiapi.h xephem-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/xephem-4.1.0^20220822139b2ea-1.fc38.x86_64/liblilxml/base64.c xephem-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/xephem-4.1.0^20220822139b2ea-1.fc38.x86_64/liblilxml/lilxml.c xephem-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/xephem-4.1.0^20220822139b2ea-1.fc38.x86_64/liblilxml/lilxml.h xephem.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xephem/LICENSE.liblilxml xephem-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/82/33fbb5ece1a3fcfd3c0304f961c107cb6cb9cd ../../../.build-id/82/33fbb5ece1a3fcfd3c0304f961c107cb6cb9cd xephem.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/xephem 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings, 6 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/XEphem/XEphem/archive/139b2ea2f156f5e968d116fc41e8e2b88732ea0d/XEphem-139b2ea2f156f5e968d116fc41e8e2b88732ea0d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c39e4c7fc86881dda8310948b72da95b475e75f649ebdd499719d4157b64e605 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c39e4c7fc86881dda8310948b72da95b475e75f649ebdd499719d4157b64e605 Requires -------- xephem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXm.so.4()(64bit) libXt.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xephem-data xephem-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl config(xephem-data) xephem-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xephem-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xephem: application() application(io.github.xephem.desktop) xephem xephem(x86-64) xephem-data: config(xephem-data) xephem-data xephem-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) xephem-debuginfo xephem-debuginfo(x86-64) xephem-debugsource: xephem-debugsource xephem-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gwyn/2123242-xephem/srpm/xephem.spec 2022-10-05 09:09:38.818510794 -0500 +++ /home/gwyn/2123242-xephem/srpm-unpacked/xephem.spec 2022-09-01 01:49:06.000000000 -0500 @@ -108,5 +108,5 @@ desktop-file-install --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications %{SOURCE1} mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/ -cp -p GUI/xephem/XEphem.png %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/ +install -p -m0644 GUI/xephem/XEphem.png %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/ Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2123242 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++, Perl Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH See all ! items. The biggest two for me are the ExcludeArch and openssl1.1. Can it use current openssl? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123242 _______________________________________________ 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
