https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129303 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |505154 (FE-SCITECH) Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 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]: 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "BSD 3-Clause License". 379 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/cbang/2129303-cbang/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. [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. [?]: 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 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 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 Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: [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: 4 cbang.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/CauldronDevelopmentLLC/cbang/archive/1.7.2/cbang-1.7.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c0c86df602f65f733d275da782bbec3eda66ee355bc1aeb6f736175ba7532ac1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c0c86df602f65f733d275da782bbec3eda66ee355bc1aeb6f736175ba7532ac1 Requires -------- cbang (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_filesystem.so.1.78.0()(64bit) libboost_iostreams.so.1.78.0()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnode.so.108()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libyaml-0.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cbang-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cbang(x86-64) libcbang0.so.1.7()(64bit) cbang-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cbang-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cbang: cbang cbang(x86-64) libcbang0.so.1.7()(64bit) cbang-devel: cbang-devel cbang-devel(x86-64) cbang-debuginfo: cbang-debuginfo cbang-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libcbang0.so.1.7.2-1.7.2-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) cbang-debugsource: cbang-debugsource cbang-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2129303 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Haskell, fonts, Java, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Maybe worth explicitly listing Openssl as a dependency b) BSD License is for test-harness which seems to not be installed, but is used in build c) Should MariaDB/LevelDB be added as dependencies for the extra features? d) Should libbfd, libiberty be added as dependencies for debug builds? e) Maybe worth asking upstream to soname the library? f) Build on ELN fails https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/cbang/build/4945964/ though this is not essential g) For documentation, maybe upstream would consider doxygen, https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/starting.html#man_out which can generate man pages? This might avoid some of the duplication in the README and in the documentation in docs/www? h) Maybe also remove the scripts folder? i) The utilities in general are useful. Can many of them be made available as subpackages? For example, renewing ACME certificates maybe helpful as a standalone feature. Subpackages would give greater visibility and encourage greater use. This is not essential though. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 [Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages -- 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=2129303 _______________________________________________ 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
