https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153697 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Source: https://github.com/y-crdt/y-crdt/blob/main/LICENSE Could you please us a link that 1) is tagged with the appropriate version 2) leads to the file and not a HTML page? This should do: https://github.com/y-crdt/y-crdt/raw/release-v%{version}/LICENSE See from the fedora-review output: https://github.com/y-crdt/y-crdt/blob/main/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c01414e4affff31246bfe5c8a2c5851364888e56069432839bd7543b9c14d3e8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1811cce5805b547f8ee9ce44c98a004e7038ccad2b1c645f74c9c3a45973cac > rust-lib0-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation Should there be a %doc README in this package? > rust-lib0-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-lib0-devel/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/lib0-0.12.2/LICENSE Is it necessary to have %license LICENSE in the devel package when the file is already in? (Although it is not marked as %license, so this is likely an issue with rust2rpm. The rest of the spec seems OK to me. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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". [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. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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. rust-lib0+serde-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-lib0+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-lib0-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-lib0+serde_json-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-lib0+lib0-serde-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-lib0-devel.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 154691 rust-lib0-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-lib0-devel/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/lib0-0.12.2/LICENSE 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s -- 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=2153697 _______________________________________________ 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
