https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169403 Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #1) > 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/ A tarball from a different link was used. Fixed. > - 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 Conflicts in libcupsfilters are removed, only Obsoletes stays based on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2169403#c3 - Obsoletes should do the trick to remove the old cups-filters-libs in case libcupsfilters is going to be installed > - Proper Obsoletes: should be provided for cups-filters-devel, which > provides similar headers and pkg-config file. Updated - -devel subpackage now has Conflicts, Obsoletes and Provides: > > > ===== 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) This package will replace the directories from cups-filters/cups-filters-devel - once cups-filters is rebased, its ownership of mentioned dirs will be removed. I've added cups-filesystem as Requires. > [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. libcupsfilters-devel conflicts on purpose, since it has incompatible changes with original cups-filters-devel. > [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. Obsoletes are set for both subpackages, Provides only for -devel. > [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 I'll file a PR to upstream. > [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 > Fixed now. > > > 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 > Fixed now. > > 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 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=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
