https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153687 --- Comment #5 from Radovan Sroka <rsroka@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This is relevant comment. Previous was a mess so I did hide it and posted again. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License BSD 3-Clause License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "SSLeay", "ISC License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "OpenSSL License [generated file]", "Boost Software License 1.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* CNRI Python License", "ISC License [generated file]", "OpenSSL License", "Open LDAP Public License v2.8". 2417 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. What should we do about vendor? [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. I think this is also relevant ^. [-]: 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. [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]: 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. [-]: 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 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 Please, use macros instead of python3 interpreter. [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 [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: [-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/rsroka/2153687-fapolicy-analyzer/srpm- unpacked/fapolicy-analyzer.spec See: (this test has no URL) [!]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Please check and fix rpmlint errors and warnings bellow. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Please check and fix rpmlint errors and warnings bellow. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm fapolicy-analyzer-0.6.2-1.fc38.src.rpm =========================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpo3v0v4t3')] checks: 31, packages: 4 fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: vendor-rs.tar.gz fapolicy-analyzer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1 ['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1'] fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs ============================================================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s ============================================================================================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphw60q_3f')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================================================================ 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 fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fapolicy-analyzer fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1 ['0.6.2-1.fc38', '0.6.2-1'] fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/util/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/css/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/glade/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/__init__.py fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/styles/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/resources/sourceview/language-specs/__init__.py fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fapolicy_analyzer.mo fapolicy-analyzer.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dbus-libs 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- fapolicy-analyzer: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/fapolicy_analyzer/rust.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/vendor-rs.fc38.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a506fac238fa6b8f968a16256e0666893a1a00a05300ff12f846937c9a015845 https://github.com/ctc-oss/fapolicy-analyzer/releases/download/v0.6.2/fapolicy-analyzer.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2fb29cd10e7e94f6390b479f8624e8836734dec0071b321a89f9fcbb28e2508c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a67dc5417b5f646f33a615aa24e340561df59221319bfc66f80f7811449ba03e Requires -------- fapolicy-analyzer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash dbus-libs gtk3 gtksourceview3 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3 python3-configargparse python3-events python3-gobject python3-importlib-metadata python3-more-itertools python3-rx rtld(GNU_HASH) fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fapolicy-analyzer: fapolicy-analyzer fapolicy-analyzer(x86-64) python3.11dist(fapolicy-analyzer) python3dist(fapolicy-analyzer) fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo fapolicy-analyzer-debuginfo(x86-64) fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource: fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource fapolicy-analyzer-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 2153687 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH So I did run review tool and there are some things that need to be fixed look for [!] and [?]. Unversioned .so file should be OK. I would also use "tar -xzf" instead of "tar xzf" and "%autosetup -p0" instead of "%autosetup -p1" in .spec but it's just my personal recomendation. When you are done just update links from the description or post a new comment with new links to the specfile and srpm. -- 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=2153687 _______________________________________________ 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
