https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157252 --- Comment #12 from Troy Curtis <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - The "and" in the license field needs to be uppercase: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/#d2-case-sensitivity ❯ license-validate 'Apache-2.0 and BSD-2-Clause and Zlib and GPL-2.0-or-later' No terminal defined for 'a' at line 1 col 12 Apache-2.0 and BSD-2-Clause and Zlib and GPL-2.0-or ^ Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'} - Looks like the test is a separate CMake project under test/, the current %check run gives: + /usr/bin/ctest --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j16 Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/workflow-0.10.5/redhat-linux-build No tests were found!!! /builddir/build/BUILD/workflow-0.10.5 - rpmlint is also throwing an error about the fsf address, maybe it should be patched to be correct? workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2157252-workflow/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. [-]: 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. [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 614400 bytes in 90 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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in workflow-devel , workflow-docs [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. The GPL file is present in upstream, but not yet in a release. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Checking: workflow-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-devel-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-docs-0.10.5-1.fc38.noarch.rpm workflow-debuginfo-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-debugsource-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm workflow-0.10.5-1.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/tmpgusoy00v')] checks: 31, packages: 6 workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211940 ===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s ==================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: workflow-debuginfo-0.10.5-1.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/tmperqkr8g8')] 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: 5 workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211940 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sogou/workflow/archive/refs/tags/v0.10.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 96fe3c434429aa3d1d15c25df5b23a72284b07c6868e3746f587b3a8e2e16a68 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 96fe3c434429aa3d1d15c25df5b23a72284b07c6868e3746f587b3a8e2e16a68 Requires -------- workflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) workflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow(x86-64) workflow-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): workflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- workflow: libworkflow.so.0()(64bit) workflow workflow(x86-64) workflow-devel: cmake(workflow) workflow-devel workflow-devel(x86-64) workflow-docs: workflow-docs workflow-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libworkflow.so.0.10.5-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) workflow-debuginfo workflow-debuginfo(x86-64) workflow-debugsource: workflow-debugsource workflow-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2157252 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Java, Haskell, R, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2157252 _______________________________________________ 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
