https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2153699 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 1) Could you please use a tagged URL for the LICENSE files? The master branch can change the content of the files or remove them. Upstream might even remove the branch entirely in favor of main. If the licenses were not in the repo yet when this release was made, use a commit hash that added them. 2) "License added, not yet released" -- is there a link that could be added? ===== MUST items ===== 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* Mozilla Public License 2.0". 6 files have unknown license. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: 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: [?]: 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 rust- atomic_refcell-devel , rust-atomic_refcell+default-devel [?]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-atomic_refcell-devel-0.1.8-1.fc38.noarch.rpm rust-atomic_refcell+default-devel-0.1.8-1.fc38.noarch.rpm rust-atomic_refcell-0.1.8-1.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/tmpubj06_1r')] checks: 31, packages: 3 rust-atomic_refcell+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-atomic_refcell-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-atomic_refcell-devel/LICENSE.APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/atomic_refcell-0.1.8/LICENSE.APACHE rust-atomic_refcell-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-atomic_refcell-devel/LICENSE.MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/atomic_refcell-0.1.8/LICENSE.MIT ============== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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: 2 rust-atomic_refcell+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-atomic_refcell-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-atomic_refcell-devel/LICENSE.APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/atomic_refcell-0.1.8/LICENSE.APACHE rust-atomic_refcell-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-atomic_refcell-devel/LICENSE.MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/atomic_refcell-0.1.8/LICENSE.MIT 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bholley/atomic_refcell/master/LICENSE.APACHE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c71d239df91726fc519c6eb72d318ec65820627232b2f796219e87dcf35d0ab4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c71d239df91726fc519c6eb72d318ec65820627232b2f796219e87dcf35d0ab4 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bholley/atomic_refcell/master/LICENSE.MIT : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d8e997e6cdf64acfdd3a9315b5dea0dd933f1f5386a55a2c16916dc8514071f2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d8e997e6cdf64acfdd3a9315b5dea0dd933f1f5386a55a2c16916dc8514071f2 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/atomic_refcell/0.1.8/download#/atomic_refcell-0.1.8.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73b5e5f48b927f04e952dedc932f31995a65a0bf65ec971c74436e51bf6e970d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73b5e5f48b927f04e952dedc932f31995a65a0bf65ec971c74436e51bf6e970d Requires -------- rust-atomic_refcell-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-atomic_refcell+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(atomic_refcell) Provides -------- rust-atomic_refcell-devel: crate(atomic_refcell) rust-atomic_refcell-devel rust-atomic_refcell+default-devel: crate(atomic_refcell/default) rust-atomic_refcell+default-devel Package APPROVED (with conditions). -- 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=2153699 _______________________________________________ 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
