[Bug 2154888] Review Request: libzonedetect - Find the timezone for a given latitude and longitude

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154888



--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
These are the usual false positive when reviewing mingw* subpackages, can be
ignored:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: mingw32-libzonedetect : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
  root/mingw/include/zonedetect.h mingw64-libzonedetect :
  /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zonedetect.h
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
  present.
  Note: Package has .a files: mingw32-libzonedetect, mingw64-libzonedetect.
  Illegal package name: mingw32-libzonedetect, mingw64-libzonedetect. Does
  not provide -static: mingw32-libzonedetect, mingw64-libzonedetect.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License",
     "ODC Open Database License v1.0", "*No copyright* Public domain". 20
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rpmbuild/reviews/2154888-libzonedetect/licensecheck.txt

I assume the timezone database will end up in the resultant binary, so I think
the ODbL-1.0 license must be listed.


[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: mingw32-libzonedetect (description)

There's a {pkgname} instead of {name} in the description.


[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source2:
    
https://www.naturalearthdata.com/http//www.naturalearthdata.com/download/10m/cultural/ne_10m_admin_0_countries_lakes.zip
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/

Typo error?


===== 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]: 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.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License",
     "ODC Open Database License v1.0", "*No copyright* Public domain". 20
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rpmbuild/reviews/2154888-libzonedetect/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.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: mingw32-libzonedetect (description)
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source2:
    
https://www.naturalearthdata.com/http//www.naturalearthdata.com/download/10m/cultural/ne_10m_admin_0_countries_lakes.zip
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
[-]: 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
     libzonedetect-devel , mingw32-libzonedetect , mingw64-libzonedetect
[?]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 7895040 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libzonedetect-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          libzonedetect-devel-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          mingw32-libzonedetect-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          mingw64-libzonedetect-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          libzonedetect-debuginfo-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          libzonedetect-debugsource-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          libzonedetect-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.src.rpm
================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpu0u0oizk')]
checks: 31, packages: 7

mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{pkgname}
libzonedetect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ZoneDetect
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: W: no-documentation
libzonedetect.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0~gitc65bc88
['0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38', '0~gitc65bc88-1']
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zonedetect.h
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zonedetect.h
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings, 2 badness; has
taken 1.6 s ==




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libzonedetect-debuginfo-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppz1gr6k4')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

=== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has
taken 0.1 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: 6

mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{pkgname}
libzonedetect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ZoneDetect
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: W: no-documentation
libzonedetect.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0~gitc65bc88
['0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38', '0~gitc65bc88-1']
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zonedetect.h
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zonedetect.h
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary
mingw32-libzonedetect.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
mingw64-libzonedetect.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libzonedetect.dll.a
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings, 2 badness; has
taken 0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/evansiroky/timezone-boundary-builder/releases/download/2022g/timezones-with-oceans.shapefile.zip
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
87c7d0b644edc34ec9ee5caf870248013ab2f3229542d9cd8bfb4d2a58ae101b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
87c7d0b644edc34ec9ee5caf870248013ab2f3229542d9cd8bfb4d2a58ae101b
https://github.com/BertoldVdb/ZoneDetect/archive/c65bc88db5338daada5b1362a1181aa6e6a4ab58/ZoneDetect-c65bc88.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
6cee5edf992a7c181ac02be4fd4ab001dce00a19e683ccca93af80feed7e7b69
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
6cee5edf992a7c181ac02be4fd4ab001dce00a19e683ccca93af80feed7e7b69


Requires
--------
libzonedetect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libzonedetect.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libzonedetect-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libzonedetect.so.0()(64bit)

mingw32-libzonedetect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw32(kernel32.dll)
    mingw32(libzonedetect-0.dll)
    mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw32-crt
    mingw32-filesystem

mingw64-libzonedetect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw64(kernel32.dll)
    mingw64(libzonedetect-0.dll)
    mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw64-crt
    mingw64-filesystem

libzonedetect-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libzonedetect-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libzonedetect:
    libzonedetect
    libzonedetect(x86-64)
    libzonedetect.so.0()(64bit)

libzonedetect-devel:
    libzonedetect-devel
    libzonedetect-devel(x86-64)

mingw32-libzonedetect:
    mingw32(libzonedetect-0.dll)
    mingw32-libzonedetect

mingw64-libzonedetect:
    mingw64(libzonedetect-0.dll)
    mingw64-libzonedetect

libzonedetect-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libzonedetect-debuginfo
    libzonedetect-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libzonedetect.so.0.0.0-0~gitc65bc88-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libzonedetect-debugsource:
    libzonedetect-debugsource
    libzonedetect-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2154888
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Python, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Java,
SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


-- 
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=2154888
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux