[Bug 2169403] Review Request: libcupsfilters - Library for developing printing filters

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169403

Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2169403-libcupsfilters/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
- I think conflict with cups-filters-libs could and should be avoided.
  See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_library_name_conflicts
- Proper Obsoletes: should be provided for cups-filters-devel, which provides
similar headers and pkg-config file. 


===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2
     Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "[generated
     file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) FSF All
     Permissive License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0
     or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "FSF
     Unlimited License [generated file]", "Historical Permission Notice and
     Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "FSF All Permissive
     License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU Lesser
     General Public License GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version
     2". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2169403-libcupsfilters/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/include/cupsfilters(cups-filters-devel), /usr/share/cups(cups-
     filesystem), /usr/share/cups/banners(cups-filters),
     /usr/share/cups/charsets(cups-filters), /usr/share/cups/data(cups-
     filesystem)
[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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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 327680 bytes in 8 files.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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]: 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).
[?]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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: libcupsfilters-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcupsfilters-devel-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcupsfilters-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcupsfilters-debugsource-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcupsfilters-2.0b3-1.fc39.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/tmpb2bkd1s1')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

=========== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0
badness; has taken 0.9 s ==========




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libcupsfilters-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.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/tmpncaujx8g')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

=========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0
badness; has taken 0.3 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: 4

libcupsfilters.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libcupsfilters.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libfreetype.so.6
libcupsfilters.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libcupsfilters.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpng16.so.16
libcupsfilters.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libcupsfilters.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libz.so.1
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 3 badness; has taken
0.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/OpenPrinting/libcupsfilters/archive/2.0b3/libcupsfilters-2.0b3.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
fa44326a9c8895c6b63f397d51c7bf03ee0a79c3504696f385fede3e6436e294
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
832e91d3427c0b8b6f157bc209447ef4468dedefe24f9bb63f1b68e11bb2d342
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
libcupsfilters (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    colord
    ghostscript
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcups.so.2()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit)
    libexif.so.12()(64bit)
    libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
    libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit)
    liblcms2.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16()(64bit)
    libpoppler-cpp.so.0()(64bit)
    libqpdf.so.29()(64bit)
    libqpdf.so.29(LIBQPDF_29)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtiff.so.5()(64bit)
    libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcupsfilters-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libcupsfilters(x86-64)
    libcupsfilters.so.2()(64bit)

libcupsfilters-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libcupsfilters-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libcupsfilters:
    libcupsfilters
    libcupsfilters(x86-64)
    libcupsfilters.so.2()(64bit)

libcupsfilters-devel:
    libcupsfilters-devel
    libcupsfilters-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libcupsfilters)

libcupsfilters-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcupsfilters-debuginfo
    libcupsfilters-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libcupsfilters.so.2.0.0-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libcupsfilters-debugsource:
    libcupsfilters-debugsource
    libcupsfilters-debugsource(x86-64)



AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libcupsfilters-2.0b3/configure.ac:61


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2169403
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, PHP, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml,
Java
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=2169403
_______________________________________________
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