https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076111 --- Comment #5 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/normalize/2076111-normalize/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [?]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 30720 bytes in 4 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). [?]: 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: Sources 0, 1 and 2 are not passed to gpgverify. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 normalize.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary normalize-ogg 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s Source checksums ---------------- http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/normalize/normalize-0.7.7.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f894cf15dc2e18d28f8c72dbd0024107cecdee961db47c38071c6266bbd8b37 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f894cf15dc2e18d28f8c72dbd0024107cecdee961db47c38071c6266bbd8b37 http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/normalize/normalize-0.7.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6055a2abccc64296e1c38f9652f2056d3a3c096538e164b8b9526e10b486b3d8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6055a2abccc64296e1c38f9652f2056d3a3c096538e164b8b9526e10b486b3d8 Requires -------- normalize (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl flac lame libaudiofile.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmad.so.0()(64bit) perl(Fcntl) rtld(GNU_HASH) vorbis-tools normalize-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): normalize-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- normalize: normalize normalize(x86-64) normalize-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) normalize-debuginfo normalize-debuginfo(x86-64) normalize-debugsource: normalize-debugsource normalize-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: normalize-0.7.7/configure.ac:225 Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2076111 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Some obsolete m4 macros. Maybe patches can be sent upstream? b) Tests are available, please add a make check section c) Can explanations for the patches be added? d) Builds on required architectures https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/normalize/build/4944631/ e) Still some warnings from autreconf and configure -- 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=2076111 _______________________________________________ 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
