https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Apache License 1.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Mozilla Public License 2.0 Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Mozilla Public License 2.0 GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License Mozilla Public License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License (modified-code-notice clause) GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Boehm GC License Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "bzip2 and libbzip2 License v1.0.6 Apache License 2.0", "zlib License Apache License 2.0", "zlib License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 2178 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/2156234-taskflow/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 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]: 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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [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]: 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 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 ------- Checking: taskflow-devel-3.4.0-1.fc38.aarch64.rpm taskflow-3.4.0-1.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/tmpsr_f7wvr')] checks: 31, packages: 2 taskflow.src: W: strange-permission taskflow.spec 600 taskflow-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 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: 1 taskflow-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/archive/v3.4.0/taskflow-3.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8f449137d3f642b43e905aeacdf1d7c5365037d5e1586103ed4f459f87cecf89 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8f449137d3f642b43e905aeacdf1d7c5365037d5e1586103ed4f459f87cecf89 Requires -------- taskflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) Provides -------- taskflow-devel: bundled(cli11-devel) bundled(cpp-httplib-devel) bundled(doctest) bundled(eigen3-devel) bundled(json-devel) bundled(spdlog) bundled(tbb) cmake(Taskflow) cmake(taskflow) taskflow-devel taskflow-devel(aarch-64) taskflow-static Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2156234-taskflow/srpm/taskflow.spec 2022-12-27 06:47:13.171799394 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2156234-taskflow/srpm-unpacked/taskflow.spec 2022-12-25 16:44:22.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Header-only library %global debug_package %{nil} @@ -64,3 +74,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Dec 25 2022 Troy Curtis Jr <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.4.0-1 +- Initial spec file. Comments: a) If the bundled packages are only used for tests and examples, should they be listed as being provided? Could any of these which are packaged in Fedora be used instead? b) Some Fedora packages do have Cuda support. Probably also Sycl support can be added. Though this does not need to be done at present. c) License warnings seem to come from bundled libraries d) There are html docs which are not packaged, probably due to embedded javascript. Can doxygen be used to provide manpages? e) Can the examples be packaged as documentation? -- 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=2156234 _______________________________________________ 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
